Hacker News Reader

Comment by 29athrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Cats used to be the #1 predator of human ancestors.

Oh, how the tables have turned now we... spend our time and money feeding them and caring for them for nothing in return? Hmmm.

I get cat love in return -- a cat purring in my lap or next to me in the bed, and keeping me company when I am (was) doing school homework. Someone who wants to be nearby, chews on the pencil I'm writing with, falls asleep on the book I'm reading or writing in (making it not easy to turn to the next page).

Yes the tables have turned

They make great pets, they do their own thing until they want to spent time with you, I work from home and they keep me company, I generally have one asleep snoring on the chair behind my desk and the other either asleep on my lap or asleep under the monitor.

It's a more effective strategy. They can only eat one human once. This way they can be parasites of a human for years.

Remember, parasites: killing your host is generally a bad strategy.

How did people figure that out?

Ever since the invention of writing, the #1 predator to humankind has been other humans, so we must go back to the time before written records to get to a time when cats were the #1 predator. My question is, in the absence of written records, how did the people of the current age determine the rate of death from the various predators?

Maybe you mean the #1 predator not including other humans?

Predator as in eats you for food, not metaphorically.

I was not writing metaphorically.

Maybe I was unclear because I was trying not to cause offense.

My question is, How would anyone know that there was a time in human history or prehistory when cats were the #1 predator of human ancestors? (I assume he means the #1 killer of our ancestors that eats us for food.)

maybe I don't get your point (in which case, ignore me), but couldn't you just count the number of deaths by each predator? i.e. count the number of human skeletons with cat teeth stuck in their bones?

"Because of skulls with jaguar-like teeth marks" @29athrowaway wrote nearby in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807745

Those cats would not have fit into a typical Amazon box nor would they have been considered a tasty snack by a passing eagle. Size matters.

Do we know that? Why not bears? And do we know if attacks on humans were common?

Because of skulls with jaguar-like teeth marks.

If you have a link, it'd be interesting to read. I websearched a bit but found only current time articles about jaguars

We have so few bones and skulls from back then that it is impossible to conclude anything.

One factor against bears being #1: Bears are not obligate carnivores, i.e. they can survive on fruits and vegetables. Cats cannot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com