Morality.

Maxdancona had good explanation for why we evolved consciences on neologist's thread. I will try to expand on this later. Again, I apologize for trying to censor the conversation.



Yes, I would agree and will add basic gut feelings like guilt, jealousy, anger, & lust are all evolved feelings and many other animals feel them as well. I disagree with him that conscience is 100% learned, and I'm not even sure he meant that.

"Contemporary scientists in ethology and evolutionary psychology seek to explain conscience as a function of the brain that evolved to facilitate altruism within societies.[69]"

A tribe that cooperates the best will out-compete a dysfunctional tribe, and therefore the genes that promote altruism within the tribe will be passed on. A person who feels driven to behave altruistically, most definitely has a conscience, which implies that our conscience was also shaped by evolution. A conscience will motivate you to cooperate with fellow tribe members and would therefore be selected for by natural selection.

Charles Lineweaver has argued that our "ideas of “good” and “evil”, and our consciences that we rely on to help us make moral decisions (like Pinnochio’s Jiminy Cricket), are features of consciousness that have evolved under selection pressure, just like skin color, intestinal pH and fingernail growth rates."[73]

"Charles Darwin thought that any animal endowed with well-marked social instincts would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as its intellectual powers approximated man's."

One should be cautious in jumping to conclusions such as this. Of course, unless one has read the papers of the scientists involved, one cannot know if journalists are providing an accurate picture of the research, nor whether the conclusions are those of the authors or of the journalists.

Genetic studies suggest that at one point, between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago (relatively recently) the entire population of homo sapiens sapiens may have fallen to as little as 1000 individuals, and certainly no more than 10,000 individuals, on the entire planet. In such a situation, although the benefits of altruism within the group are obvious, it is a little naïve to speak of competition between "tribes" (people probably lived in small bands which never rose to the dignity of tribes) when the human population was so low as to be nowhere near the limit of the exploitation of resources. In such a situation, strong leadership within the band would be as effective as altruism--the point would be to routinely amass resources sufficient to feed everyone and assure successful reproduction.

In fact, strong leadership--authoritarianism, if one wishes to cast it in a somewhat pejorative light--would be far more effective when people became pastoralists or sedentary farmers. The authority of the band leader could assure effective cooperation as much as any alleged genetic pre-disposition toward altruism. Any suggestions that altruism would have favored one group over another in competition for resources is to my mind a dubious claim at best. Once again, we don't know if this is what researchers claim, and upon what reasoning they make such a claim, or whether th s is the garbled report of journalists. Personally, i consider altruism are far more subtle and complex trait than is impolied by such a claim.

I wasn't raised in the church or even in this country. I hold a degree in science. I don't come here for information as this would not be the correct source . I'm always interested in others opinions. A think when discussing a topic introducing an opposing view enriches a topic.

Simple societies such as indigenous band societies that exist to this day in Latin America tend to have one leader or dual leader. These societies exercise self government and the leaders are more tribal representatives than authoritarian leaders. Their social stratification resembles that of the Neolithic period.

How do you know that? (Besides, neolithic was very much later, thousands of years later, than the era to which i was referring--the lower paleolithic.)

At any event, i just offered the term authoritarian as an alternative to leadership. My point, which seems to have eluded you, is that human populations were so thin, that any advantage derived from altruism would not have been an advantage in competing with other groups. There were so few humans that there were more than enough resources for all groups. The advantage was in inter-group relations, in the exploitation of cooperative efforts, not in competing for scarce resources--the resources weren't scarce.

How do I know what exactly. And no I didn't miss your point.

I'd say you did miss the point, because you were babbling about neolithic societies, which was not at all what i was talking about. You seem to have missed the question, too, which was straight forward.



How do you know that?

I was simply acknowledging a modern day analogy to an ancient culture and the possible correlations. I was contemplating the similarities which continued well into the Iron Age. I wonder if the study of moral relativism in these cultures could define some understanding.

You actually missed the point

By peeking into her spouse's cellphone.

Cute timur. Lives are complex.. I bet you think you have some stature to live up to on some forum. Wow..

You bet and lose..

I very seriously doubt it. I bet you're Napoleon Dynamite and are getting your rocks off

It's curious how you are losing all your bets..

What bets? You simply enjoy trolling. Best regards

You have provided no evidence that such a correlation exists. There are no records of paleolithic, mesolithic or neolithic societies which can be consulted--especially not with some vague reference to "stratified" societies. It is a gross and inaccurate simplification to say that there were any such "similariteis" in Iron age societes, which vary widely. For example, in Tacitus' Germania, he describes societies which are not at all hierarchical, not at all "stratified."

Frankly, i think you're peddling historical woo-woo . . . bumkum.

This is the more hilarious coming from someone who alleges that s/he doesn't come here for information because it is not the appropriate source. I suggest you consult some appropriate source before expatiating again on societies as though they were routine produced by the use of cookie cutters.

What are you talking about? Tell me the exact thing you can't seem to understand. I'll explain it to you be precise

I understand what you've written just fine--and you're wrong.

Wrong about what exactly?

Wrong about "stratification" in tribal societies of South America, wrong about analogies from neolithic societies, wrong that analogies can be constructed from any one society to any other society, wrong about iron age societies--you're wrong about just about everything i've read you post in this thread.