2) Does "one" refer to "a bizarre double standard"?

In addition, does "one that is predicated" mean " one that is affirmed"?

GOOD AND EVIL
There may be nothing more important than human cooperation. Whenever more pressing concerns seem to arise!alike the treat of a deadly pandemic, an asteroid impact, or some other global catastrophe!ahuan cooperation is the only remedy (if a remedy exists). Cooperation is the stuff of which meaningful human lives and viable societies are made. Consequently, few topics will be more relevant to a maturing science of human well-being.

The author went on:

Quote:

GOOD AND EVIL
There may be nothing more important than human cooperation. Whenever more pressing concerns seem to arise!alike the treat of a deadly pandemic, an asteroid impact, or some other global catastrophe!ahuan cooperation is the only remedy (if a remedy exists). Cooperation is the stuff of which meaningful human lives and viable societies are made. Consequently, few topics will be more relevant to a maturing science of human well-being.

Does "few topics will be more relevant to a maturing science of human well-being" mean "few topics will be more relevant than cooperation to a maturing science of human well-being"?

Certain biological traits appear to have been shaped by, and to have further enhanced, the human capacity for cooperation. For instance, unlike the rest of the earth'screatures, including our fellow primates, the sclera of our eyes (the region surrounding the colored iris) is white and exposed. This makes the direction of the human gaze very easy to detect, allowing us to notice even the subtlest shifts in one another's visual
attention. The psychologist Michael Tomasello suggests the following adaptive logic: If I am, in effect, advertising the direction of my eyes, I must be in a social environment full of others who are not often inclined to take advantage of this to my detriment-by, say, beating me to the food or escaping aggression before me. Indeed, Imust be in a cooperative social environment in which others following the direction of my eyes somehow benefits me.

The whole argument seems rather absurd to me

Naw, Oris. He aint talkin about a "beating" in that sense. He means "getting there first," beating me to the goal, and that kind of beating.

If he was going to take advantage of me, he could, by watching where I'm looking, beat me to the prey I am pursuing. So, since I aint wearin sunglasses, I must be assuming that he will NOT exploit his observation of me to "outcompete" me.

The whole argument seems rather absurd to me, but that's what it appears to be.

As to your specific question of "whose aggression," he means something like this.

If a lion is coming at the crowd, that lion will, lets say, take the closest person he finds. This other guy might beat me to the escape. Again, lame argument, but...

In this case the "aggression" would be that of the lion, eh?

However, "escaping aggression before me" appears to have more in it. Any one cares to explain it in more detail?

Not sure what more you're looking for. I read "before me" as basically meaning "before I do." He could mean "aggression in front of me," too, I suppose.

The other guy made the aggression and then escaped before him (the author)?
Why not used "escaped from me"?

Quote:

The other guy made the aggression and then escaped before him (the author)?
Why not used "escaped from me"?

Now we're on entirely different pages, Oris. Did you read what I said about the lion and aggression?

If a lion is coming at the crowd, that lion will, lets say, take the closest person he finds. This other guy might beat me to the escape. Again, lame argument, but...

In this case the "aggression" would be that of the lion, eh?

Now we're on entirely different pages, Oris. Did you read what I said about the lion and aggression?

The other guy made the aggression and then escaped before him (the author)?
Why not used "escaped from me"?

Quote:

Now we're on entirely different pages, Oris. Did you read what I said about the lion and aggression?

Yeah, Oris, you got it. But, since you did, I don't understand what you're asking here:

Quote:

The other guy made the aggression and then escaped before him (the author)?
Why not used "escaped from me"?

The idea seems to be something like this: I'm looking north and see a lion--my face registers fear, anxiety, etc. You are, let's say, north of me, looking at my face, so you immediately take off running. You escape the lion by "reading" me, so maybe now I don't.

That's what I take the guy to be saying, although it doesn't make any real sense to me. Especially since he's trying to say I let you see my face because I know you will cooperate with me. ****, everybody's gunna run. How's he supposed to "cooperate?" By standing still and letting the lion get to him first? Heh, aint gunna happen.

Certain biological traits appear to have been shaped by, and to have further enhanced, the human capacity for cooperation. For instance, unlike the rest of the earth'screatures, including our fellow primates, the sclera of our eyes (the region surrounding the colored iris) is white and exposed. This makes the direction of the human gaze very easy to detect, allowing us to notice even the subtlest shifts in one another's visual
attention. The psychologist Michael Tomasello suggests the following adaptive logic: If I am, in effect, advertising the direction of my eyes, I must be in a social environment full of others who are not often inclined to take advantage of this to my detriment-by, say, beating me to the food or escaping aggression before me. Indeed, Imust be in a cooperative social environment in which others following the direction of my eyes somehow benefits me.

If I am, in effect, advertising the direction of my eyes, I must be in a social environment full of others full of others who are not often inclined to take advantage of this to my detriment...