Could Elephants truly be the next sentient species on Earth?

L.Y.S.

Illuminator
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
3,467
I am no evolutionary biologist, or scientist of any kind. In fact I'm just a simple IT guy who is getting a corporate law degree. However, I keep having these thoughts and visions of what if. If we all could just consider the possibility for one moment of a fully sentient elephant with advanced and developed civilizations and cultures such as our own. Scientists say that elephants already possess many of the benchmarks for being sentient. This conversation will be strictly about the African Savannah Elephant, the recent loss their tusks, and the mutation of many of its populations.

I present my case in the following manner. We all have read the numerous accounts of elephants losing their tusks and how damaging it is to elephant behavior. I am sure this is not new and in fact has been reviewed several times on this website. The use of their tusk is nearly limitless. They use their tusks for digging up the ground, taking down large vegetation, and the males use it for sexual display and sparring. Tusked elephants are becoming endangered and the numbers dwindle day by day.

What effect could this have on the elephants themselves? Could it increase their reliance on their trunks and on tools? Would it make Elephants more dependant on creating tools instead of using the natural tools evolved over millions of years?

We all know from at least a scientific perspective that bipedalism is one of the most important evolutionary feats in human history. It allows humans to freely use their hands and create tools. However, what if bipedalism is not necessary for complete sentience? What if the only necessary requirement is the availability of a tool making ligament? Now what if the hallmark of elephant evolution was not evolving to stand on two legs, but losing their tusk and being forced to use artificial tools as an only means of survival? What if elephants had to develop radically different social behaviors in order to survive? In my personal laymen opinion the conditions are ripe for creating another sentient species on Earth.

Ironically humans are the driving force behind another massive extinction. The rivers and rainforests of the world are drying up. The savannahs are becoming drier much like they were during our time of evolution. And most importantly elephants are being forced to change their behaviors in order to survive and adapt. The losing of their tusk, which has never happened in their history, combined with the severe climate change could have extremely profound consequences on elephant’s social behavior.

Humans are the sole source of blame, nature it self is naturally heating up and Africa is drying up year by year. This is nothing special in Africa’s history, it has happened for eons. However, humans are in fact enhancing this natural process and making it worse than it ever would be without the interference of humans.

Back to major point of this long post is this; I believe and think it should be given serious scientific consideration of the possibility that elephants could become sentient from this whole entire human mishap. I think humans should be on the look out for the next few centuries for the possibility of major changes in the elephants’ social behavior. I think one of the primary things we should look for is an integration of elephant bulls into society with elephant cows.

If older matriarchal females and their eldest daughters can no longer provide for their family group it may force them to change their behaviors. When bulls are at the mid-adolescent phase they begin to inhabit a space away from the women. They begin to inhabit the peripheral lands around the female elephants and not get substantially close to them any longer. Once the young male reaches the age of 14-16 they usually leave these areas and do not return. My idea is that this type of relationship will begin to drastically change. Resources that were once abundant will become scare. Older females will not be able to provide for the younger females and their calves. The water holes will become much scarcer and the vegetation will become even scarcer.

Competing family groups of women will begin to fight for the small waterholes and develop clear territories and rivalries. Instead newly grown up males being kicked out of society they will be adopted by rival female factions and they will keep them at the edge of the peripheral territories for safety and protection. In return the males will be granted access to food, water, and safety. The matriarchs will begin developing close relationships with the stronger elder bulls for close protection. These elder bulls will be granted unlimited access to the herd of females. Male isolation will abruptly end and bachelor herds will be things of the past. Males will be fully integrated members of society, with the weaker younger males at the outer peripheral territory and the older stronger males closer to the herd for protection.

I also suspect that the lack of vegetation will force elephants to adapt new tactics in food consumption. Their diets will switch from a primarily herbaceous diet to a more omnivorous one that includes the meat of small animals like warthogs and even large ones like giraffes. The lack in food supply may also cause these newer elephants to shrink in order to accommodate a dwindling food supply. These new elephants would be:

1.) More social in order to both protect and share food

2.) Leaner in order to accommodate a small food supply

3.) More reliant on tool usage due to the lack of tusks

4.) Groups will be smaller and much more organized in order to protect from the constant threat of other near by herds of elephants.

5.) They will diversify their food supply in order to survive.

6.) Gestation periods may decrease from 22 months to about 18 months.

7.) Childhoods and the age of sexual maturity may increase from 15 years to about 21 years in order to compensate for the increase learning necessary to survive.
These are nothing more than guesses, but I figured it was worth the shot.

Now like I said I am no evolutionary biologist nor do I think this is the end all be all, but I do seriously think that scientist should watch for major changes in the elephant behavior in order to better understand the principles of evolution. I think we are looking at a real opportunity to understand how sentient evolution works. We as humans could watch something evolve from it’s infancy until it reaches the same capabilities as us today. This would offer millions of years of knowledge and wisdom, more than not observing the phenomenon would.

Elephants are the only other creatures other than higher primates and cephalopods closely related to the squid, octopus, and cuttlefish that have the ability to grab things and use tools. If there is any species that can evolve sentience on this Earth it would have to be from among these 3. Cetaceans have a good possibility if they could use tools effectively. Therefore, I conclude that the in my personal laymen opinion that the elephant’s hallmark to evolution will be the loss of their tusks.

I would like to apologize for this strenously long post. Thanks for reading.
 
Last edited:
Elephants like dolphins while very intelligent lack manipulative organs such as hands. Perhaps if elephants developed another trunk with fingers they could be a self aware intelligent species after humans go extinct but if that happened I believe chinpanzees or another species of ape would take our place.
 
Elephants like dolphins while very intelligent lack manipulative organs such as hands. Perhaps if elephants developed another trunk with fingers they could be a self aware intelligent species after humans go extinct but if that happened I believe chinpanzees or another species of ape would take our place.

Except that they wouldn't be chimpanzees anymore, but a descendent adapted to take over the environmental niche abandoned by humans. It would probably take a few million years.
 
Elephants like dolphins while very intelligent lack manipulative organs such as hands. Perhaps if elephants developed another trunk with fingers they could be a self aware intelligent species after humans go extinct but if that happened I believe chinpanzees or another species of ape would take our place.

An elephants' trunk is way more manipulative than anything a dolphin has. It's actually quite close to a primate hand in function. African elephants, if I remember correctly, even have an opposable digit on the end of their trunk (I think Asian elephants lack that extra digit).

The elephant's trunk is sensitive enough to pick up a single blade of grass, yet strong enough to rip the branches off a tree.
 
Kangaroos. Already bipedal, social organization, and young spend a long time being cared for by the mother.

Like other species, they'd need a few million years with us out of the way to get going.
 
I must protest the word 'sentient'.
Its loaded with anthropomorphic chauvinism.
Is self-awareness limited by the ability to manipulate objects?
Is an ant colony self-aware? They certainly manipulate objects.
They take slaves; do animal husbandry (with aphids); grow crops (fungi, as in the leaf cutters); etc.

To turn the question upside down, what would become of human awareness if we lost the ability to use tools? And we were forced into an alternative niche because of it?

Having hung out with bottle nose dolphins, up close and personal, I certainly felt like I was in the company of 'sentient' beings.
 
Elephants like dolphins while very intelligent lack manipulative organs such as hands. Perhaps if elephants developed another trunk with fingers they could be a self aware intelligent species after humans go extinct but if that happened I believe chinpanzees or another species of ape would take our place.

I was actually going to make an extra part to the post about the possibility of elephants developing two or three trunks. Elephants developing lots of trunks actually occurs more today than it ever did in the past. And I would be interested to see if elephants could develop a mutant trait that exhibited another 1 or 2 trunk(s).

If we look at chimpanzees we would see the trait of mutant bipedalism occurring frequently. Mutant bipedalism actually occurs more frequently than most people think. If we remember the 70's Oliver the chimp was a display of mutant bipedalism. I do think that in millions chimpanzees will develop a species of hew hominids similar to our own. If that was the case we have to examine what is so special about humans, chimps, and our common ancestors to perpetually produce intelligent sapient species.

But originally I was going to talk about mutations in the elephant population that would make the smaller new elephants take advantage of multiple trunks. I actually agree that without the multiple trunks elephants would remain only partially sapient. But I do think that a mutant elephant without tusks and with multiple trunks will arise in the near future. I’ll come up with a hypothesis about that as well.
 
I'm of the consideration that many sapient species occupy this planet, they may not all be at the same level or degree of sapience, but then much the same could be said, and demonstrated, within the range of members in our own species.

Noun
sapience - ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight
 
I must protest the word 'sentient'.
Its loaded with anthropomorphic chauvinism.
Is self-awareness limited by the ability to manipulate objects?
Is an ant colony self-aware? They certainly manipulate objects.
They take slaves; do animal husbandry (with aphids); grow crops (fungi, as in the leaf cutters); etc.

To turn the question upside down, what would become of human awareness if we lost the ability to use tools? And we were forced into an alternative niche because of it?

Having hung out with bottle nose dolphins, up close and personal, I certainly felt like I was in the company of 'sentient' beings.

I unfortunately do not have all the necessary answers to these questions and won't even pretend that I do have the answers. I've actually wondered why ants can't become the next dominate species on Earth. But I believe that with closer examination one thing that prohibits the ants is definitely their size. Exoskeletons in my personal laymen opinion are horrible ways to develop sizes large enough for brain stimulation and growth. In fact if ants grew to just the size of puppies they would require more oxygen than an adult male African elephant!

The insectoid reliance on large amounts of oxygen for size is clearly inefficient and would only get large enough to develop sophisticated brains during times when they had lots of oxygen. I don't have any clue if that is possible anymore. Effectively, ants may have lost their ability to grow into full sapience during the Triassic. Earths oxygen levels are much lower and arthropods outside of the water can no longer develop large shells capable of supporting large bodies.

As for the dolphin issue I would definitely like to point out the lack of tool building. I've never said creatures that couldn't make tools aren't smart; I've simply stated that this is a hallmark in full sentience (being able to build cities, organize agronomic systems, and keep detailed records of their civilizations). Cetaceans are actually some of the smartest creatures on Earth. But how they build stuff? You've got me beat with the ants other than their size, but cetaceans have the problem of not being able to build things at all. They are self-aware but I do not think unless their physical appearance changes significantly that they will be able to build cities or organize in such a fashion.

Furthermore, anthromorphic chauvinism? If anything my curiosity in seeing whether or not quadrapedal animals could develop into a sentient species debunks that whole entire idea.

I think out of all the species of earth the most promising in my personal laymen opinion is: Apes, Cephalopods, and Elephants. They have both the mental capabilities and the ability to use tools. Unfortunately we know of no other way sentient creatures can build cities and complex social structures without the use of tools. Until you come up with one I'll have to support the idea that tool making it a benchmark in creating complex social systems.
 
I consider elephants to be sentient right now.

Long before any of the traits described in the OP could evolve, elephants will be extinct in the wild. I'm not sure scientists need to be "watching for" such changes in social structure because the more pressing issue is simply finding places for elephants to live. Where unprotected, elephants are driven out or exterminated. Where protected, the elephants have become overabundant and contributing to their own demise (as well as that of other species, including humans). Elephant conservation is one of our greatest and most complex challenges in terrestrial ecosystems.
 
I'm of the consideration that many sapient species occupy this planet, they may not all be at the same level or degree of sapience, but then much the same could be said, and demonstrated, within the range of members in our own species.

Noun
sapience - ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight

Man! You all are coming up with some good stuff keep it up!! I really like this, I myself do think that there is a different level of sapience not limited to our present condition of full speech, culture, and self-awareness. I think sapience is the understanding of self-awareness, but to what degree could be of large debate.

Elephants like dolphins while very intelligent lack manipulative organs such as hands. Perhaps if elephants developed another trunk with fingers they could be a self aware intelligent species after humans go extinct but if that happened I believe chinpanzees or another species of ape would take our place.

And I would agree I do think another trunk would make things easier. I actually think it would be a cool thing to see the descendants of chimps develop into new hominids and slug it out with the new sentient elephants. I watch way too much star trek :blush:, I'm thinking about the Xindi :D.
 
When I say sentient I'm talking about the development of cities and complex tribal systems, I am not going to debate over semantics. It was clear from my first established post that I was talking about the creation of complex societies similar to our own capable of building cities and eventually space travel. I am not talking about the ability to look into a mirror, or even have the ability to understand speech moderately.

I think many elephants are at a cross roads that they will be forced to develop a new and more robust social structure that integrates all genders of the elephant race and develops settlements similar to cave dwellings for protection and safety. Mods I would only ask that you keep this thread open long enough so that more open-minded individuals who can see the possibilities can comment on this post.

I see a lot of people reading the title but not reading my opening statement, therefore you are not qualified to even comment in this post until you have read my opening statement. If this thread is bothering you that much, then avoid this post and never comment in it again. Avoid flaming or trolling my post.

Thank you very much.

Gaius
 
When I say sentient I'm talking about the development of cities and complex tribal systems, I am not going to debate over semantics. It was clear from my first established post that I was talking about the creation of complex societies similar to our own capable of building cities and eventually space travel. I am not talking about the ability to look into a mirror, or even have the ability to understand speech moderately.

I think many elephants are at a cross roads that they will be forced to develop a new and more robust social structure that integrates all genders of the elephant race and develops settlements similar to cave dwellings for protection and safety. Mods I would only ask that you keep this thread open long enough so that more open-minded individuals who can see the possibilities can comment on this post.

The evolutionary strategy that elephants seem to be using right now is to select for a mutation that gets rid of tusks in the male and replaces them with more aggressive behavior. This would seem to be an obstacle to them developing a civilization, but as with humans, the females may be the ones to take the first steps.

Personally, I think elephants would need to get physically much smaller to form a civilization. Right now, they use up too many resources when they collect in groups large enough to form stable communities. However, future evolution may cause them to adapt in much the same way humans did; giving up a lot of raw strength in favor of a more cunning approach to survival.

I see a lot of people reading the title but not reading my opening statement, therefore you are not qualified to even comment in this post until you have read my opening statement. If this thread is bothering you that much, then avoid this post and never comment in it again. Avoid flaming or trolling my post.

Thank you very much.

Gaius

Actually, anyone can comment any way they like as long as they follow forum rules.
 
Last edited:
I was actually going to make an extra part to the post about the possibility of elephants developing two or three trunks. Elephants developing lots of trunks actually occurs more today than it ever did in the past.

Can you cite an instance in which this has happened, or better yet, any rigorous survey to support the assertion that this (or chimp bipedalism, for that matter) is increasing in frequency?

Why assume that there would be another sentient species on Earth if we were to go extinct suddenly? There have been animals with large brains and social behavior (we think) around since the time of the dinosaurs, but it's only now that there is a species that builds cities and the like.

It's entirely possible that something like an elephant or an anthropoid primate other than humans could take our place. There is no reason to believe that that would happen, however, and a string of imagined circumstances does not make a compelling argument.
 
When I say sentient I'm talking about the development of cities and complex tribal systems, I am not going to debate over semantics. It was clear from my first established post that I was talking about the creation of complex societies similar to our own capable of building cities and eventually space travel. I am not talking about the ability to look into a mirror, or even have the ability to understand speech moderately.

I think many elephants are at a cross roads that they will be forced to develop a new and more robust social structure that integrates all genders of the elephant race and develops settlements similar to cave dwellings for protection and safety. Mods I would only ask that you keep this thread open long enough so that more open-minded individuals who can see the possibilities can comment on this post.

I see a lot of people reading the title but not reading my opening statement, therefore you are not qualified to even comment in this post until you have read my opening statement. If this thread is bothering you that much, then avoid this post and never comment in it again. Avoid flaming or trolling my post.

Thank you very much.

Gaius

I did read your opening statement.

Elephants are already sentient.

If you don't like that, chose a different word.
 
It's entirely possible that something like an elephant or an anthropoid primate other than humans could take our place. There is no reason to believe that that would happen, however, and a string of imagined circumstances does not make a compelling argument.

In order to even speculate whether another sapient species will emerge, much less which existing species is most likely to produce it, one would have to predict all the major environmental events over the next few million years, as well as all the random mutations that might occur.

We can't even predict the weather past a few days.
 
When I say sentient I'm talking about the development of cities and complex tribal systems, I am not going to debate over semantics. It was clear from my first established post that I was talking about the creation of complex societies similar to our own capable of building cities and eventually space travel. I am not talking about the ability to look into a mirror, or even have the ability to understand speech moderately.

I think many elephants are at a cross roads that they will be forced to develop a new and more robust social structure that integrates all genders of the elephant race and develops settlements similar to cave dwellings for protection and safety. Mods I would only ask that you keep this thread open long enough so that more open-minded individuals who can see the possibilities can comment on this post.

I see a lot of people reading the title but not reading my opening statement, therefore you are not qualified to even comment in this post until you have read my opening statement. If this thread is bothering you that much, then avoid this post and never comment in it again. Avoid flaming or trolling my post.

Thank you very much.

Gaius


That's not sentient is it?

From wiki

http://www.wikipeetia.org/Senntiennce

Senntiennce is teh abillity to fiel or percieve. Teh tirm is unsed iin sciennce adn philisophy, adn iin teh studdy of artifical inteligence. Senntiennce is unsed iin teh studdy of conciousness to decribe teh abillity to ahev sennsations or eksperiences, known to Westirn philosophirs as "kwualia". Iin eastirn philisophy, senntiennce is a metaphisical qualiti of al thigsn taht erquiers erspect adn caer.
 
When I say sentient I'm talking about the development of cities and complex tribal systems, I am not going to debate over semantics. It was clear from my first established post that I was talking about the creation of complex societies similar to our own capable of building cities and eventually space travel. I am not talking about the ability to look into a mirror, or even have the ability to understand speech moderately...

Words have established meanings, ignorance of those meanings is a burden upon those misusing them, not upon those who understand and use them appropriately.

Many existing sapient animals do have complex social structures particularly those who tend toward herd or pack living (dogs/wolves, cetaceans, apes, and others, even elephants). As for cities, that is largely a technological artifice more than anything to do with sapience or even intelligence, of especial note in this regard would be the social insects who are more than capable of technology without any real substantive measure of either intelligence or sapience.
 
Words have established meanings, ignorance of those meanings is a burden upon those misusing them, not upon those who understand and use them appropriately.

Many existing sapient animals do have complex social structures particularly those who tend toward herd or pack living (dogs/wolves, cetaceans, apes, and others, even elephants). As for cities, that is largely a technological artifice more than anything to do with sapience or even intelligence, of especial note in this regard would be the social insects that are more than capable of technology without any real substantive measure of either intelligence or sapience.

The proper term would be sapience, not sentience. Sapience is defined as the wisdom in which animals handle situations and not the ability of self-awareness (which is what sentience is). And there is a distinct difference between sentience and sapience. Sentience deals with self-awareness which elephants already have, but sapience deals much more closely with how animals judge or address situations.

. Robert Sternberg[21] has segregated the capacity for judgment from the general qualifiers for intelligence, which is closer to cognizant aptitude than to wisdom. Displaying sound judgment in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom.

The evolutionary strategy that elephants seem to be using right now is to select for a mutation that gets rid of tusks in the male and replaces them with more aggressive behavior. This would seem to be an obstacle to them developing a civilization, but as with humans, the females may be the ones to take the first steps.

Personally, I think elephants would need to get physically much smaller to form a civilization. Right now, they use up too many resources when they collect in groups large enough to form stable communities. However, future evolution may cause them to adapt in much the same way humans did; giving up a lot of raw strength in favor of a more cunning approach to survival.

I would actually agree to a very large extant. If we look at how hominini have developed away from hominidae it would be a similar divergence in theory. If we look at the original common ancestors to human and chimps they were actually much closer in behavior to gorillas than modern humans. The divergence supposedly occurred because males began to provide females with resources instead of fight for mating rights. In fact the benchmark in human and chimp behavior is how the males provide for their females instead of fighting for mating rights and abandoning their young. Here is my evidence supporting this statement I just made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsO0Bh0ErbQ .

It's about 90 minutes in length but it goes through the issue of common ancestor between humans and chimps. It is only suspected that ardipethicus is a common ancestor to chimps and humans.

I too think that elephants will have to shrink in order to accommodate food supplies and I think they will have to further still develop multiple trunks to take advantage of tool making. I do think tool making is one of the defining characteristics of advanced sapience. One of the defining characteristics that allowed humans to survive over all of our other hominid ancestors and relatives was the fact that we were small and had a diverse diet. Neanderthals did not have this evolutionary advantage and still relied heavily on consumption of heavy game. When the forestry of Europe changed and the arrival of more sapient humans occurred (homo sapiens :jaw-dropp, geddit? geddit? ;)) they could not adapt quickly enough to consume food supplies and they starved to death.

I think in general that this same incident may occur amongst elephants with the defining characteristics being the large more aggressive tuskless elephants vs. the smaller tuskless multi-trunked elephants.

Can you cite an instance in which this has happened, or better yet, any rigorous survey to support the assertion that this (or chimp bipedalism, for that matter) is increasing in frequency?

Why assume that there would be another sentient species on Earth if we were to go extinct suddenly? There have been animals with large brains and social behavior (we think) around since the time of the dinosaurs, but it's only now that there is a species that builds cities and the like.

It's entirely possible that something like an elephant or an anthropoid primate other than humans could take our place. There is no reason to believe that that would happen, however, and a string of imagined circumstances does not make a compelling argument.

Sorry about this I actually misspoke and mean to say that there are several cases, not of the rise or increase of casing. There would be no scientific data to back up or support that assertion and I apologize for such an assertion. However, there are cases in recorded history of there being mutant bipedalism in primate populations other than humans, with the majority of cases occurring in chimpanzee communities. Unfortunately these incidents have only been recorded and have not been seriously studied and examined by the scientific community, partially due to the ignorance surrounding the phenomenon. During the time of the discovery of creates like Oliver the chimp, negative and foolish words like "missing-link" still lingered in the minds of the populous. Fortunately for us alive today those words have faded, but during the time of Oliver in the 70's those words were still highly used.

It was really not up until 5 or 6 years ago that scientific did thorough enough research to determine that Oliver was nothing more than a common chimpanzee. It will take decades more research to truly understand the common occurrence of mutation in animals out in nature. No one quite knows why mutations like this occur yet but I am sure than with in the next few decades this phenomenon will be much more understood. For now we can only speculate why bipedalism has occurred, but here are a few articles on the subject in question:

Here is an article about the effects of climate on bipedalism: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.10342/full

Here is a book about bipedalism among chimps: http://www.springerlink.com/content/067867j341t13662/

Many scientist are beginning to determine that the original hominids may have been injured or have had been born bipedal like Oliver the change and exhibited this different behavior since birth.

Here are the few instances of bipedalism recorded in human history:

Oliver (unfortunately this video is about the humanzee ignorance I was speaking of earlier):

Part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C6NkRUbI38

Part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BucQb91MJg&feature=related

Part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC9N62dixeY&feature=related

Part 4- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Y_-_mPy3s&feature=related

Part 5- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOF-3kV7Lec&feature=related

Part 6- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi1KiHVPd9s&feature=related

Sorry for the ignorance of these people guys, but this is a well documented video of Oliver the chimpanzee's life. It becomes better near the end when the scientist start talking the idiots stop talking.


Poco:

http://www.olpejetaconservancy.org/chimpanzee_sanctuary/our_chimpanzees?page=4

Poco is actually an extremely unique case of forced bipedalism. He has actually had a very tragic existence and was forced to stand on two legs.


Here is a small reference to chimpanzee bipedalism in this book, there is also a reference to Poco on the page that I found: http://books.google.com/books?id=ks...Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Poko (CHIMPANZEE)&f=false

Take time and read through the entire book for a good understanding of human bipedalism.


Natasha: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479501...cience/t/monkey-apes-humans-walking-two-legs/

She is a normal black Macaque that lives in a zoo out in Israel. The unique thing about her situation is that she is also another case of forced bipedalism, but not due to tragedy, more to do with a medical condition. This most likely happened because walking on fours was straining her airways and bipedalism may have been a natural way to relax the airways for better breathing.

So far from ape bipedalism we have gathered the following:

Bipedalism developed probably by one of the following fashions:

1.) Forced weather change

2.) Mutant bipedalism

3.) Forced bipedalism from traumatic experience

4.) Or bipedalism as a result of a medical condition

I happen to think that bipedalism evolved from the first 3 scenarios and the fourth only reinforced bipedalism. But that again is my laymen assertion of phenomenon. I do tend to think that mutant bipedalism occurred in the common ancestor to chimps and humans and that these adaptations actually proved much more advantageous than reverting to quadrapedalism. No one factor influenced bipedalism, but rather a serious mutation that occurred that was taken full advantage off. Bipedal males were much more capable of gathering fruit and bringing them to lovers and thus the bipedal trait was reinforced in early hominids. Hominini that stuck to the original arboreal blue print most likely developed into our closest relatives the genus Pan.

As for elephant there are not as many well documented incidents of having multiple trunks, there is one well known occurrence however. And elephant named Humphrey who had two trunks, posted up in a display in the Ripley’s believe it or not HQ out in San Antonio Texas.

From the Ripley’s believe it or not news room: http://www.ripleysnewsroom.com/worl...ve-it-or-not-odditorium-opens-in-san-antonio/

Two-Trunked Elephant
Believe It or Not!, this full size bull African elephant legally culled on Nov. 9, 2004 in Zimbabwe, Africa, had two fully developed usable trunks! DNA analysis confirmed the authenticity of this, the rarest animal oddity in the entire Ripley’s Believe It or Not! collection.

Here is another article by a simple enthusiast but he goes into further detail than I’ll go about the issue.
http://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2010/11/two-trunks-meet-humphrey.html

FRIDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2010
TWO-TRUNKS, MEET HUMPHREY!

Ripley's two-trunked elephant (Christopher Elliott)


As an ardent collector of data appertaining to zoological freaks, caprices, and monsters of the teratological kind, two of my fondest longstanding daydreams have focused upon the discovery of an elephant with two trunks and a camel with three humps. Naturally, however,, I never seriously expected to fulfill either of them, as I'd always assumed such fanciful beasts to exist only in the most fevered of imaginations. But not any more!

When chatting recently on Facebook to fellow teratophile Markus Bühler, I was astonished to learn that he had encountered a photograph of a supposed two-trunked elephant in one of the many Ripley's Believe It Or Not! books, and that he had read of reports of extra-humped camels too. Needless to say, with an alacrity that would surely have impressed even Sherlock Holmes (had he actually existed, of course!), I was soon hot on the trail of Ripley's proboscis-advantaged pachyderm, and, lo and behold, Markus was absolutely correct!

On 5 November 2005, Christopher Elliott had posted a short blog at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4989709
entitled 'Inside the Ripley's Warehouse of Oddities', and he had included a photo that he had snapped of the stuffed head of an adult African elephant...with two trunks! According to Christopher Elliott: "Apparently both of this elephant's two distinct trunks were fully functioning".

Although, teratologically speaking, the development of a double trunk is not impossible - such an appendage could theoretically arise if, during the elephant's embryogeny, the region of developing tissue giving rise to the trunk had split - it must also be borne in mind that there are some exceedingly gifted taxidermists out there, who, down through the ages, have created all manner of very convincing fake beasts. Whether the Ripley's specimen is genuine (as they believe it to be) or not, however, it is undeniably a truly remarkable exhibit - if only because, following all the countless jokes in the past about the elephant being the only creature capable of making a trunk call, this particular specimen may well have been the only elephant able to reverse the charges!!

Man if I weren’t motivated to be politically active and socially conscious I would actually pursue science my self and find out these claims. Oh and I have a crappy photoshopped image of what I think the multi-trunked elephants would look like, it’s just the trunk part not the size. I may actually be inspired to draw a rough sketch of what I think the entire organism will look like later.

http://www.freakingnews.com/Multi-trunked-Elephant-Pics-61391.asp

Ignore the dumb photoshopping and focus on the principle at hand. An elephant equipped with multiple trunks would be much different from an elephant with simply one trunk.
 
Words have established meanings, ignorance of those meanings is a burden upon those misusing them, not upon those who understand and use them appropriately.

Many existing sapient animals do have complex social structures particularly those who tend toward herd or pack living (dogs/wolves, cetaceans, apes, and others, even elephants). As for cities, that is largely a technological artifice more than anything to do with sapience or even intelligence, of especial note in this regard would be the social insects who are more than capable of technology without any real substantive measure of either intelligence or sapience.
The proper term would be sapience, not sentience. Sapience is defined as the wisdom in which animals handle situations and not the ability of self-awareness (which is what sentience is). And there is a distinct difference between sentience and sapience. Sentience deals with self-awareness which elephants already have, but sapience deals much more closely with how animals judge or address situations...

I don't think I stated, implied or conflated sapience and sentience in any of my statements or comments. I don't understand how the above comment relates to anything I stated. Please explain.
 
Last edited:
I unfortunately do not have all the necessary answers to these questions and won't even pretend that I do have the answers. I've actually wondered why ants can't become the next dominate species on Earth. But I believe that with closer examination one thing that prohibits the ants is definitely their size. Exoskeletons in my personal laymen opinion are horrible ways to develop sizes large enough for brain stimulation and growth. In fact if ants grew to just the size of puppies they would require more oxygen than an adult male African elephant!

The insectoid reliance on large amounts of oxygen for size is clearly inefficient and would only get large enough to develop sophisticated brains during times when they had lots of oxygen. I don't have any clue if that is possible anymore. Effectively, ants may have lost their ability to grow into full sapience during the Triassic. Earths oxygen levels are much lower and arthropods outside of the water can no longer develop large shells capable of supporting large bodies.

As for the dolphin issue I would definitely like to point out the lack of tool building. I've never said creatures that couldn't make tools aren't smart; I've simply stated that this is a hallmark in full sentience (being able to build cities, organize agronomic systems, and keep detailed records of their civilizations). Cetaceans are actually some of the smartest creatures on Earth. But how they build stuff? You've got me beat with the ants other than their size, but cetaceans have the problem of not being able to build things at all. They are self-aware but I do not think unless their physical appearance changes significantly that they will be able to build cities or organize in such a fashion.

Furthermore, anthromorphic chauvinism? If anything my curiosity in seeing whether or not quadrapedal animals could develop into a sentient species debunks that whole entire idea.

I think out of all the species of earth the most promising in my personal laymen opinion is: Apes, Cephalopods, and Elephants. They have both the mental capabilities and the ability to use tools. Unfortunately we know of no other way sentient creatures can build cities and complex social structures without the use of tools. Until you come up with one I'll have to support the idea that tool making it a benchmark in creating complex social systems.

As per the ants:
1. Its quite possible that they are the dominant species. Our concept of dominance is quite slanted with 'crown of creation' nonsense. Ants outweigh us. They will no doubt out survive us. They are evolving their social structures; forming non-competing super colonies; doing genetic manipulations, and more.
2. The limits of the exo-skeleton on brain size is true if you consider the ant as an individual. When you see the colony as a whole; the super organism, than the brain size issue changes. The individuals are in near constant communication with the others, through several means, including chemical.
3. Large ant colonies are like a city; complete with division of labor; nurseries; waste disposal systems; defense; exploration; etc.

Is the colony as a whole self-aware? A group mind, on a par with ours?
Who knows We've barely begun to study them in earnest.
I recommend E.O. Wilson's books; "Journey to the ants" and the more technical and recent "Superorganisms".

For a more conventional approach to exploring the interesting query of your o.p., I'd watch the orca pods. Here's a very large mammal with a large and well developed brain that has a social order; hunts in packs; lives a long life, and lives in a media that is 3 times as large as the one that we have dominated. They aren't stuck in one small area of the ocean. They live in a vast zone; more dimensional (in a way) than ours. Like other cetaceans, there is some evidence that they can create cozy realms of sound...possibly equivalent to buildings and structures...though ones that are co-generated; fluid; temporary; creative, etc.

Again, we have just begun studying cetaceans. We know very little about their world. I may be romancing the situation because of an innate revulsion to human arrogance and superiority. Because we could kill off all the social cetaceans before we learn more about them, well, that would be a piss-poor way of securing the 'crown'.

With ants, I doubt its even possible.
 
Nah I've just been busy doing stuff quarky you're fine.

To TShaitanaku, & The Central Scrutinizer (somewhat):

The reason I originally created this thread was not to debate about semantics or specifics, but to examine already intelligent creatures that have the greatest potential on Earth to become the next dominate species. This is what I am arguing about, could elephants become the next dominate species would have been a much more accurate title. I ask the mods to alter the name of the post to "Could Elephants truly be the next dominate species on Earth?"

I am sure this will end a lot of the bickering. I am attempting to examine scenarios in which elephants can overcome there currently strangle holds and take over much of Earth as we did. Elephants are an extremely interesting case and have extremely interesting potential. They are the only model of quadraped that has the potential to escape the limitation of quadrapedalism and create artificial structures mainly (culture) like we currently have.

Elephants have all the right ingredients. They are very intelligent, have great memories, have awesome power solving skills, and already have the ability to communicate and use basic symbolism. Who could argue that it would be awesome to see intelligent elephants being the next dominate species on Earth? They have so much capability and potential, and that is what I am arguing here. I never said elephants are dumb, stupid, or aren't on our same level. Nor have I disrespected animals and say that they are lower than humans. All creatures are equal in my eyes even insects. All things have their place in this world, and all life helps to maintain Earth's delicate balance.

But the true questions I ask in this post are:

1.) Who will be able to shape and use the Earth like us after we are gone? Whether we left of free will or because of extinction doesn't matter, but who else will have the ability to mold this earth?

2.) Who will be able to create complex artificial cultures and tools that help them after we have moved on from Earth?

Some scientist say that the Squid will evolve over the next 200 million years to become the next dominate species of Earth. But I think if this tuskless scenario happens along with a few mutations that elephants could be the next ones.

3.) Who will be able to eventually leave Earth and communicate with beings from the stars eventually?

These questions are not about whether or not elephants are smart. We all know that elephants are. But I am genuinely curious to see if elephants have what it takes to become the next dominate species of Earth, and if they have the capability to achieve star travel and all the other amazing things that we humans can currently achieve. Will they eventually ask the same questions we all ask right now; are we alone in this universe? In my mind these are monumental questions that have monumental consequences if they are true.

To Quarky:

Part of my interest is to escape this so called "anthromorphic chauvinism" so commonly preached in our culture. The elephants present entirely new models in which the any organ of the body could be used as a tool making ligament.

Elephants in my opinion have opened my mind to a new vast array of anatomical models different from the Star Trek loving bipedal models which so many humans worship. Elephants offer an awesome opportunity for the quadrapedal model of locomotion to produce an intelligent and dominate species.

Not doubt many other animals have this potential, but I must stress that without the ability of being able to manipulate tools the ability of most creatures to become the dominate species of Earth is extremely difficult.

And quarky I don't disagree on the ants. I have though for a long time about whether or not ants could do the same thing. But the size thing is a serious limitation. And we currently have no evidence that they can communicate in a collective. If it is scientifically proven that they can somehow mentally communication then I am all open for changing my ideas about how intelligence works! I am not so closed minded to think that different models could not exist and work out. However, I would have to disagree about the dominate species aspect of ants.

Cetaceans have lots of potential! Don't get me wrong, our limited understanding of the situation doesn't help. But the lack of tool using ligaments does genuinely prevent them from being able to move from the oceans, to the land and to the stars. This discussion is about creatures that can break their dependence on Earth. And humans have that potential, although we are in the infancy of this revolution.

I would not overlook cetaceans, certainly not, because they can use telekinesis and telepathy as their tool making ligaments. Who is to say that this isn't possible? But we haven't seen the use of tools! I would hate to keep stressing this, but if some people could compile the use of tools in animals other than primates, elephants, and cephalopods. Some animals use there mouths, but how safe can that be? We can't eliminate that, but it wouldn't be very safe over productive to move objects with your mouth that were natural. Imagine smelting iron using your mouth :jaw-dropp!!!!! I can only imagine how horrible that would feel :D.

Quarky I get you man, I hate all human arrogance my self. Notice I never praised the bipedal as the supreme and heavenly path to intelligence. In fact I am investigating a number of ways in which creatures can develop the ability of tool use without the traditionally perceived need for arms and or legs. I'm even investigating the ability of creatures to communicate without the need for vocalization. If elephants ever communicated it would not be by traditional throat-based vocalized speech. This is almost certainly an accepted fact. I would be something closer to communication using the trunk.

Which is why I think the development of another 1 or 2 trunks maybe vital in more complex communication among elephants. Complex trumpeting calls of varying complexity will mostly be the way in which elephants communicate. It's how they currently communicate. They're form of communication could be so complex that modern humans may almost have no hope of understanding this. There are already several studies on the topic. Scientist think that there are very complex proto-languages used by elephants which would be very similar to the basic calls used by early humans. Here are just a few studies:

http://www.physorg.com/news4211.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/unforgettable/communication.html

http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/elephant-communication.html

http://elephantvoices.org/elephant-communication.html

All in all my argument is that elephants like I have mentioned several times have the ability to replace humans as the dominate species if a few important mutations arise. No one knows if this will ever happen, but it is quite interesting to speculate. I think the possibility is certainly there. There have already been mutating multi-trunk elephants founded in a few places. Albeit maybe not the most effect alignment of trunks, but certainly the possibility already exists.
 
And quarky I don't disagree on the ants. I have though for a long time about whether or not ants could do the same thing. But the size thing is a serious limitation. And we currently have no evidence that they can communicate in a collective. If it is scientifically proven that they can somehow mentally communication then I am all open for changing my ideas about how intelligence works! I am not so closed minded to think that different models could not exist and work out. However, I would have to disagree about the dominate species aspect of ants.

Especially interesting is the behavior of army ants, which are nomadic. They assemble into a great ball of individuals (rather than digging a mound), that stays in one place until some unknown threshold is reached and they all simultaneously decide to pick up and go. Nobody knows what triggers this behavior, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were a very similar process to decision-making in the human brain.

I would not overlook cetaceans, certainly not, because they can use telekinesis and telepathy as their tool making ligaments. Who is to say that this isn't possible?

I suppose I am.

It's not possible, as there is no such thing as telekinesis or telepathy.
 
It's not possible, as there is no such thing as telekinesis or telepathy.

Ha-ha my main man here. No problem I don't think that stuff will occur for quite some time my self. But hell I had to throw that guy a bone :D.
 
In no particular order . . .

Why does there have to be a species with material culture? Earth was banging on without a species doing this for a few billion years. Human material culture wasn't needed, and it is not a foregone conclusion that some species must develop one to fill some void.

For a non-human species to become dominant you're assuming that we are gone. I'm hard-pressed to imagine a scenario in which all humans are gone but elephants survive. Even with a Homo sapiens-specific virus of some kind, there's a heckuva lot more of us than there are of them. It's 2011. The fact that elephants exist in the wild at all results from human decisions with respect to wildlife management. If the societal fabric on which that management is woven were to unravel, elephants would be gone rather quickly.

Elephants evolving a 2nd trunk? Species don't just spontaneously develop traits that might serve some use to them at some point in the future. What happens is that selection favors some variants in the population that provide the individual some advantage (or are linked to something else advantageous) right now. When you look at elephants today, the spectrum of variation is not one trunk or two, it's things like length, girth, dexterity at tip, internal musculature, etc.

There's more than "smarts" and "hands" that led to development of our material culture (although the combination of those two was hugely important). Some of our development stems from basic physiology, for example. As our ancestors increased the amount of meat in their diets, they gained leisure time during the feasting and digesting of this high-energy food. That was time to tell stories, preserve culture, etc. that herbivores simply don't have. They have to spend a proportionally much greater amount of their time eating because they're reliant on comparatively bulky and low-quality forage. It would take truly radical changes in anatomy and physiology for elephants to significantly change their diets. Until then, they're stuck spending most of their time eating.
 
Ha-ha my main man here. No problem I don't think that stuff will occur for quite some time my self. But hell I had to throw that guy a bone :D.
I hope I'm not the guy you threw the bone to.

The most glaring thing you said about ants is that we have no evidence that they can communicate as a collective.

Actually, that is their main trick. Constant feedback mechanisms.
The colony may as well be a brain; individual ants; neurons.

Are they likely to fly to other galaxies?

Um, about as likely as us.
More likely than elephants, bless their hearts.

Elephants are doomed; perhaps in our lifetimes. I don't like it.
I'm a big fan of elephants.


Anyway, glad you responded. Its an interesting subject.

Once you get into speculating about smaller, multi-trunked elephants, one must consider cetacean mutations that allow flippers with fingers.
(Perish the thought)

However, you might want to look into the embryology of cetaceans.

Perhaps all it would take is some anti-thalidimide.
 
Perhaps all it would take is some anti-thalidimide.

Cetaceans check on smarts, sociality, leisure time to think about stuff, etc. If they could solve the dexterity problem that would help their case. I still think they'd be limited by the whole "aquatic" thing, though. No matter how smart and dexterous you are, it's really hard to build a material culture underwater. Paper? No. Metal? No. Agriculture? No. I struggle to imagine what cetaceans would actually want/need/be able to do.
 
Crows or magpies.
They are intelligent, make tools, can reason, are social and communicate among each other. They are ubiquitous and thrive where people live.
 
Cetaceans check on smarts, sociality, leisure time to think about stuff, etc. If they could solve the dexterity problem that would help their case. I still think they'd be limited by the whole "aquatic" thing, though. No matter how smart and dexterous you are, it's really hard to build a material culture underwater. Paper? No. Metal? No. Agriculture? No. I struggle to imagine what cetaceans would actually want/need/be able to do.

Exactly!

That's the part humans don't get:

Life might be a more fulfilling experience if we couldn't use tools.
The life of a pod of dolphins might be incredible. Awesome, if you think about it.

Imagine having your mind in that body, and living that life.
Why build stuff?
If dolphins had any reason to, they could build underwater cities of stone and brick, mortarless; gathered in their mouths from various deposits; but for what purpose?

They already have what they need. Especially if we crap out soon.
 
I would not overlook cetaceans... But we haven't seen the use of tools!


Dolphins have been frequently observed to use and make tools, and even to exhibit culture. They carry sponges on their rostra as shields when foraging on the bottom, they scrape algae off tank walls with broken tiles and leaves and have even been seen to kill scorpionfish and use their spines to drive prey animals out of hiding places.
 
Again this thread is really just for fun. Quarky I already explained in my original post how I thought elephants would change. When you point out something please quote the specific passage to my idea you're talking about so that I have a better idea.

The truth is we are all searching for other life forms with similar material cultures to our own. Not necessarily capitalist, communist, or any of the other BS labels we put on our existence, but an alien culture that has sophisticated language, agriculture, literature, and well recorded oral or written history. We all want to find life forms that are similar to our own, it doesn't matter how they got their cultures, it only matters that one day we can reach out into the stars and touch them.

Embedded in this post is the secret desire of people to have something like themselves if they were ever to leave Earth. Elephants are at a crossroads, but I think even 140'000 years ago you could say the same about people. It was us 2'000 humans getting through that crisis that made a path for us today. I think because elephants are so endangered that the few left will develop intelligence. As for the trunk issue there are several other ways in which the trunk could evolve into multiple trunks without the need of my previous rapid genetic mutation model. I just like mutants :p.

One of my favorite ideas that go with gradualism is the idea that the two fingers and nostril holes will separate over millions of years to accommodate the increased need for another tool using ligament. Over time the one trunk will separate into two. This is a completely possible adaption that could occur. Again these are all just theories, and this all is just for kicks. I personally think that this natural need for compensation due to the loss of the tusks will actually occur. And in the next few thousand years we will witness at lot more cases of elephants utilizing their trunks and artificial tools. There is no other logical way for an elephant to replace the useful tusk they once had. Aggressiveness is only part of the behavior change. I am almost certain an increased reliance on tool use will result as well. Give it a good decade or two and I bet they find that elephants without tusks are much more reliant on the use of sticks and or teamwork to take down trees or dig up dirt.
 
Dolphins have been frequently observed to use and make tools, and even to exhibit culture. They carry sponges on their rostra as shields when foraging on the bottom, they scrape algae off tank walls with broken tiles and leaves and have even been seen to kill scorpionfish and use their spines to drive prey animals out of hiding places.

Then maybe we can't over rule the use of a mouth as useful tool using ligament. Maybe the mouth is all a creature needs in order to develop a sophisticated culture. But how would they begin to live a life style that we could closely understand and document? Not saying that Cetaceans aren't smart, just how can they exactly create a stable culture under water? It is possible for cetaceans to develop a race of sophisticated nomadic creatures that create temporary shelters in order to take advantage of good aquatic hunting seasons. But how they would document this, or harness sea kelp for food, or any of this stuff. It's all hard to quite grasp lol. Not saying dolphins aren't intelligent, it's simply that they don't need the culture like we do. Humans NEED culture for survival. I don't think the same is true for most creatures. However, it could become true for highly endangered tuskless elephants.
 
There is no other logical way for an elephant to replace the useful tusk they once had.

If we humans stop preferentially shooting the ones with the biggest tusks, I'd wager that average tusk size will begin to increase again. It's far more likely that the "gene for big tusks" again becomes prevalent in populations than that two trunks becomes the norm.
 
An elephants' trunk is way more manipulative than anything a dolphin has. It's actually quite close to a primate hand in function. African elephants, if I remember correctly, even have an opposable digit on the end of their trunk (I think Asian elephants lack that extra digit).

Dolphins don't need hands, they have sonar, which is waaaaay more effective for investigating their surroundings than hands could ever be
;)

If we humans stop preferentially shooting the ones with the biggest tusks, I'd wager that average tusk size will begin to increase again. It's far more likely that the "gene for big tusks" again becomes prevalent in populations than that two trunks becomes the norm.
I didn't think it was a gene which created large tusks in african elephants, but age as they never stop growing, elephants are just dying younger
;)
 
Last edited:
Then maybe we can't over rule the use of a mouth as useful tool using ligament. Maybe the mouth is all a creature needs in order to develop a sophisticated culture. But how would they begin to live a life style that we could closely understand and document? Not saying that Cetaceans aren't smart, just how can they exactly create a stable culture under water? It is possible for cetaceans to develop a race of sophisticated nomadic creatures that create temporary shelters in order to take advantage of good aquatic hunting seasons. But how they would document this, or harness sea kelp for food, or any of this stuff. It's all hard to quite grasp lol. Not saying dolphins aren't intelligent, it's simply that they don't need the culture like we do. Humans NEED culture for survival. I don't think the same is true for most creatures. However, it could become true for highly endangered tuskless elephants.

Extremely good memory, replaces many of the artifacts we require in the place of such total recall.
 
All in all my argument is that elephants like I have mentioned several times have the ability to replace humans as the dominate species

When did humans replace ants? I must have missed that.

Sorry. We're the smartest species on the earth, but "dominant" species is subjective, or if objectively determined it's not us.

I like elephants, but I don't see them having competitive advantages over other species, such as the ability to breed like crazy in any climate. That's the kind of thing we used to "take over" the planet {mwaahhahaha!} to the best of our ability, which involves letting ants just do what they do and hoping for the best.

Elephants (and dolphins, and possibly other mammals) have highly complex emotional lives and, maybe, the capacity for limited amount of abstract thought. But that's not sentience. When sentience "goes off" the species can use whatever advantages it has to overcome disadvantages and not be subject to the whims and foibles of the world around them. Competitive advantage is not just the ability to outbreed the neighbors (google " ants " ) but the ability to modify either the environment or one's response to the environment in order to succeed. We make houses and make clothing, and that gives us the ability to seek food and breed in any environment.

Gotta watch some movie or another with the kids now. So much for being master of one's environment....
 

Back
Top Bottom