The Philosophy of Early Human Evolution

Joseph Murphy10 said:Since you moved this over to Philosophy, I’m guessing you’re looking for deep dives and actual debates based on your prompt rather than just raw data.

Look, we can start with the obvious—there were tons of different early human tribes out there. And honestly? The whole evolution from primitive hominids to modern humans wasn't nearly as straight line as those textbook historical materialism classes make it sound. Those courses present history as this neat, linear progression—which basically brainwashes students into thinking in one dimension unless they actually take the time to think deeper and look at the bigger picture for themselves.

If we assume what Harar said in his book is right—that we're the descendants of that specific group of Homo sapiens who made that massive leap forward—then, staying within the bounds of philosophy without acting like a know-it-all historian, we could argue that transition happened the exact moment a human became self-aware and finally thought, I am.

I don't see any massive "quantum leap" here, just a long series of small steps. Humans certainly didn't suddenly become "human" because of the Holocene, even if that era acted as the catalyst for civilization. Even if you choose to view the rise of civilization as a major jump—which isn't a given—it has absolutely nothing to do with "self-awareness" or saying "I am." That happened a hell of a lot earlier.

Ethan Gomez82 said:I don't see any massive "quantum leap" here, just a long series of small steps. Humans certainly didn't suddenly become "human" because of the Holocene, even if that era acted as the catalyst for civilization. Even if you choose to view the rise of civilization as a major jump—which isn't a given—it has absolutely nothing to do with "self-awareness" or saying "I am." That happened a hell of a lot earlier.

Harrian is nothing more than a footnote, and his timeline is even worse. (Btw, word is Neanderthals were self-aware too—they just didn't stick around like us fake sapiens). And this whole "quantum leap" thing is just rhetorical fluff, so whatever you said stands—it doesn't bother me. But look, even the very first one of those little steps had its own magical moment where everything changed forever. What matters to me is that specific moment of self-realization triggered by that "I am" cry—and as for causality, I’ve got my own take on that, which shouldn't be hard to guess.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

Joseph Murphy10 said:Since you moved this over to Philosophy, I’m guessing you’re looking for deep dives and actual debates based on your prompt rather than just raw data.

Look, we can start with the obvious—there were tons of different early human tribes out there. And honestly? The whole evolution from primitive hominids to modern humans wasn't nearly as straight line as those textbook historical materialism classes make it sound. Those courses present history as this neat, linear progression—which basically brainwashes students into thinking in one dimension unless they actually take the time to think deeper and look at the bigger picture for themselves.

If we assume what Harar said in his book is right—that we're the descendants of that specific group of Homo sapiens who made that massive leap forward—then, staying within the bounds of philosophy without acting like a know-it-all historian, we could argue that transition happened the exact moment a human became self-aware and finally thought, I am.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at specifically; I've actually read and bought all three of Harrian's books. In *Sapiens*, he develops a few key themes. First, he argues that humans are inherently genocidal toward other species—essentially, our rule is to wipe out whatever else is in our path. He provides plenty of evidence for this, ranging from Australia to Europe, describing various animals that thrived until humans arrived and subsequently vanished. That part is hard to dispute. We talk about species extinction being caused by human activity today, yet we often forget that this has been our pattern since our very beginning. It challenges the idea that climate change was the primary driver of past extinctions, because it's quite obvious that species disappeared precisely when humans showed up. You see this most clearly on islands and in places like Australia. Places like Australia and New Zealand had completely different flora and fauna before humans set foot there.

The second and third theses involve the necessity of large populations and connectivity for the development of human society—specifically, the ability to communicate and exchange ideas among as many people as possible. He claims that the interconnectedness of the Eurasian continent allowed the people living there to advance much faster than those in the Americas or Africa. The American continents and Africa were simply less conducive to the movement of people and the exchange of ideas, plants, and animals compared to the Eurasian continent, which is why Native Americans and African Americans progressed more slowly than European Americans and Asian Americans.

To me, his theories are quite intuitive. If the human population were to drop to a small number, we wouldn't even be able to maintain what we've built so far, let alone create anything new.

So, for philosophy and the other products of advanced civilizations to exist, you need cooperation among a vast number of people. I want to emphasize that: cooperation, not war.

ruggedraven36 said:The phrase "like a fish in water" gives me the chills. I'd never want to be part of that breed of people—the ones who just drift along perfectly in their little bubbles.

A peaceful life isn't "unnatural." What's actually unnatural are wars, exploitation, the thirst for power and wealth, manufactured needs, and the relentless stripping of the earth. Though, honestly, even calling it "unnatural" is a bit of a misnomer here—nature itself is fundamentally unnatural if there's no soul breathing through it.

That’s kind of you to say.☕

ruggedraven36 said:The phrase "like a fish in water" gives me the chills. I'd never want to be part of that breed of people—the ones who just drift along perfectly in their little bubbles.

A peaceful life isn't "unnatural." What's actually unnatural are wars, exploitation, the thirst for power and wealth, manufactured needs, and the relentless stripping of the earth. Though, honestly, even calling it "unnatural" is a bit of a misnomer here—nature itself is fundamentally unnatural if there's no soul breathing through it.

By the Holy Spirit?

@Sam Martinez9, just giving you my two cents here—and yeah, I mentioned you because you definitely influenced how I see things. Specifically regarding that whole debate about human evolution from early hominids in the first part of book one. I tried to break it down better in my follow-up comment to Ethan Gomez82.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 via Reddit

It would have been quite easy for that "I am" to emerge from a simple realization of "he/she is not." Back then, death was a constant shadow lurking around every corner—and if those beings were even remotely similar to us today, they absolutely had to develop that fundamental sense of consciousness to survive.

That is precisely my assumption, and frankly, I find it staggering to think that this state persisted for tens of thousands of years before any semblance of "progress" began—though, looking back, that supposed "progress" was most often jeopardized by the most trivial of circumstances.

Sam Martinez9 said:I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at specifically; I've actually read and bought all three of Harrian's books. In *Sapiens*, he develops a few key themes. First, he argues that humans are inherently genocidal toward other species—essentially, our rule is to wipe out whatever else is in our path. He provides plenty of evidence for this, ranging from Australia to Europe, describing various animals that thrived until humans arrived and subsequently vanished. That part is hard to dispute. We talk about species extinction being caused by human activity today, yet we often forget that this has been our pattern since our very beginning. It challenges the idea that climate change was the primary driver of past extinctions, because it's quite obvious that species disappeared precisely when humans showed up. You see this most clearly on islands and in places like Australia. Places like Australia and New Zealand had completely different flora and fauna before humans set foot there.

The second and third theses involve the necessity of large populations and connectivity for the development of human society—specifically, the ability to communicate and exchange ideas among as many people as possible. He claims that the interconnectedness of the Eurasian continent allowed the people living there to advance much faster than those in the Americas or Africa. The American continents and Africa were simply less conducive to the movement of people and the exchange of ideas, plants, and animals compared to the Eurasian continent, which is why Native Americans and African Americans progressed more slowly than European Americans and Asian Americans.

To me, his theories are quite intuitive. If the human population were to drop to a small number, we wouldn't even be able to maintain what we've built so far, let alone create anything new.

So, for philosophy and the other products of advanced civilizations to exist, you need cooperation among a vast number of people. I want to emphasize that: cooperation, not war.

But what does the author actually mean by this? When discussing history, he points out that *Homo sapiens* likely faced near-extinction roughly 40,000 years ago. Given how many millennia we've supposedly been around, I find it entirely plausible that we hit those kinds of breaking points. All these years we've occupied this planet have essentially been one long, continuous struggle—a constant fight against predators, scavengers, and whatever else was trying to take us out.

Is it actually possible that our genes carry the lasting imprints of old traumas and deep-seated fears—residual echoes that continue to shape and dictate how we behave even today?

Megan Gray32 said:Is it actually possible that our genes carry the lasting imprints of old traumas and deep-seated fears—residual echoes that continue to shape and dictate how we behave even today?

I certainly hope so. Because if those struggles aren't etched into our biology, then they were all just a waste of time.

Megan Gray32 said:It would have been quite easy for that "I am" to emerge from a simple realization of "he/she is not." Back then, death was a constant shadow lurking around every corner—and if those beings were even remotely similar to us today, they absolutely had to develop that fundamental sense of consciousness to survive.

That is precisely my assumption, and frankly, I find it staggering to think that this state persisted for tens of thousands of years before any semblance of "progress" began—though, looking back, that supposed "progress" was most often jeopardized by the most trivial of circumstances.

Everything that lives eventually dies, so death wasn't just stalking humans; it was stalking every living thing. Death is an inevitability for any biological entity.

If the fear of death is what drove humans to develop consciousness, then every single form of life—from the very first prehistoric bacteria onward—should have developed consciousness as well.

Megan Gray32 said:But what does the author actually mean by this? When discussing history, he points out that *Homo sapiens* likely faced near-extinction roughly 40,000 years ago. Given how many millennia we've supposedly been around, I find it entirely plausible that we hit those kinds of breaking points. All these years we've occupied this planet have essentially been one long, continuous struggle—a constant fight against predators, scavengers, and whatever else was trying to take us out.

Scientists claim that at one point, the population of Homo sapiens dropped to perhaps only 2,000 individuals, bringing us to the brink of extinction. That is just one specific moment in our extensive history; everything else Harar writes about follows that timeline.

Joseph Murphy10 said:@Sam Martinez9, just giving you my two cents here—and yeah, I mentioned you because you definitely influenced how I see things. Specifically regarding that whole debate about human evolution from early hominids in the first part of book one. I tried to break it down better in my follow-up comment to Ethan Gomez82.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S10 via Reddit

The same author and the same book will impact different people in different ways. I simply wrote down what struck me. If you're interested and it fits the topic, I'd love for you to go into more detail about what resonated with you.

Sam Martinez9 said:Everything that lives eventually dies, so death wasn't just stalking humans; it was stalking every living thing. Death is an inevitability for any biological entity.

If the fear of death is what drove humans to develop consciousness, then every single form of life—from the very first prehistoric bacteria onward—should have developed consciousness as well.

Scientists claim that at one point, the population of Homo sapiens dropped to perhaps only 2,000 individuals, bringing us to the brink of extinction. That is just one specific moment in our extensive history; everything else Harar writes about follows that timeline.

The same author and the same book will impact different people in different ways. I simply wrote down what struck me. If you're interested and it fits the topic, I'd love for you to go into more detail about what resonated with you.

That's obvious.

However, looking at your second point, I'd like to offer a slight correction—I would argue that it was precisely because of death that humans developed consciousness. Perhaps that's the fundamental trait that sets us apart from every other biological entity on the planet.

Sam Martinez9 said:Everything that lives eventually dies, so death wasn't just stalking humans; it was stalking every living thing. Death is an inevitability for any biological entity.

If the fear of death is what drove humans to develop consciousness, then every single form of life—from the very first prehistoric bacteria onward—should have developed consciousness as well.

Scientists claim that at one point, the population of Homo sapiens dropped to perhaps only 2,000 individuals, bringing us to the brink of extinction. That is just one specific moment in our extensive history; everything else Harar writes about follows that timeline.

The same author and the same book will impact different people in different ways. I simply wrote down what struck me. If you're interested and it fits the topic, I'd love for you to go into more detail about what resonated with you.

It seems we were truly on the verge of vanishing. Why do you think that happened, and how? Furthermore—and this is a bit of a heavy question—is it better that we survived, or would it have been better if the predators that once fed on us had remained in control?

Megan Gray32 said:That's obvious.

However, looking at your second point, I'd like to offer a slight correction—I would argue that it was precisely because of death that humans developed consciousness. Perhaps that's the fundamental trait that sets us apart from every other biological entity on the planet.

It seems we were truly on the verge of vanishing. Why do you think that happened, and how? Furthermore—and this is a bit of a heavy question—is it better that we survived, or would it have been better if the predators that once fed on us had remained in control?

I don't believe consciousness is exclusive to humans, nor do I think consciousness can exist without self-awareness, but that’s a conversation for another time.

Megan Gray32 said:That's obvious.

However, looking at your second point, I'd like to offer a slight correction—I would argue that it was precisely because of death that humans developed consciousness. Perhaps that's the fundamental trait that sets us apart from every other biological entity on the planet.

It seems we were truly on the verge of vanishing. Why do you think that happened, and how? Furthermore—and this is a bit of a heavy question—is it better that we survived, or would it have been better if the predators that once fed on us had remained in control?

The reasons are likely the same as any other species: food shortages, harsh shifts in the climate, environmental changes, or simply being hunted by predators too effectively.

Megan Gray32 said:Is it actually possible that our genes carry the lasting imprints of old traumas and deep-seated fears—residual echoes that continue to shape and dictate how we behave even today?

Hell yeah.
I was just reading this recently—pretty sure it’s Bernie Sanders in Man or Bridle in a New Dark Age (or maybe someone else, I can't remember exactly, but I read it just the other day)—about how if you imagine history as a metaphorical clock, our whole tech era—from the first Industrial Revolution straight to now—is basically just a one-minute slice on a 12-hour clock face. That’s just a way to visualize it, obviously, to show how tiny our "enlightened" moment really is. There are 59 other intervals before this one. It's all right there in our genetic makeup.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 via Reddit

Megan Gray32 said:Is it actually possible that our genes carry the lasting imprints of old traumas and deep-seated fears—residual echoes that continue to shape and dictate how we behave even today?

Of course not. At the end of the day, what's actually coded in our genes is just a set of biological instructions for protein synthesis.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Of course not. At the end of the day, what's actually coded in our genes is just a set of biological instructions for protein synthesis.

Look, there's a nuance here. Proteins play a massive role in embryogenesis, which influences how neural networks develop—essentially setting the brain's "factory settings." Certain reactions and fears are hardwired because they were selected as survival traits. Think about an instinctual fear of snakes or heights, or even certain types of disgust toward specific smells. It’s not everything, but it’s certainly a factor.

Nicholas Grant20 said:Is human progress actually a straight line moving upward, or are we just stuck in some kind of endless loop?

I’d say we’re looking at a long-term upward trend that’s roughly linear, even if there are all these medium-term and short-term cycles happening inside that bigger climb.

It's pretty much like the chart shown below. Of course, trying to predict what happens next is a total crapshoot. That long-term upward climb might actually be sitting inside an even larger cycle, or we could see everything crash straight to zero if some apocalyptic scenario hits. Whatever. Based on the historical data we actually have, we can make some solid calls. If you plot development metrics on the y-axis against time on the x-axis, most datasets would probably show a distribution very similar to this one.

Gerald Jackson48 said:I’d say we’re looking at a long-term upward trend that’s roughly linear, even if there are all these medium-term and short-term cycles happening inside that bigger climb.

It's pretty much like the chart shown below. Of course, trying to predict what happens next is a total crapshoot. That long-term upward climb might actually be sitting inside an even larger cycle, or we could see everything crash straight to zero if some apocalyptic scenario hits. Whatever. Based on the historical data we actually have, we can make some solid calls. If you plot development metrics on the y-axis against time on the x-axis, most datasets would probably show a distribution very similar to this one.

The whole idea of "progress" is baked right into how we define history. History is just the steady march toward a better understanding of freedom.

From every conceivable angle, early humans possessed far more freedom than we do today. It strikes me that as our collective consciousness evolved, we actually achieved the exact opposite—the individual expanded their own autonomy by encroaching upon the liberty of others.

Furthermore, if freedom is truly regarded as a core ideal within any serious, rational intellectual circle, why on earth haven't we developed a practical system to support it? Why does everyone continue to cluster together in these suffocating, smog-filled cities—places where you can barely find enough oxygen to breathe—while mindlessly chanting about "liberty" like some sort of hollow mantra?

Real freedom was an urgent necessity back when actual slavery existed, because under those conditions, true mental development was impossible. Today, we have every opportunity to cultivate our minds, yet we still exist within a different kind of bondage—the endless grind of the 9-to-5, where our entire mental capacity is consumed by the trivial task of managing pennies.

What does "freedom" even mean to people living like that? To them, it’s nothing more than empty rhetoric and hollow ideals. They tie it to notions of rights and equality, which ultimately serve as a smokescreen for the same old story: providing the perfect cover for more organized, more efficient tyrants than ever before.

.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Of course not. At the end of the day, what's actually coded in our genes is just a set of biological instructions for protein synthesis.

And what about proteins? Egg whites, yolks... scrambled eggs? Yum.

Griffith, nice one! You really poked a hole in this. All that fighting and blood spilled for freedom—which, let’s face it, most people can’t even handle once they actually get it. I’m currently digging through some essays by Ivan Illich—a brilliant guy, though he doesn't get nearly enough credit here in the States. He writes beautifully about this stuff. Ever read him? That bit about printing things out in those stinky, crowded cities sounds like it was pulled straight from his "Vernacular Values." 🙂

Sent from my Galaxy S10 via Reddit

Sent from my Galaxy S10 via Reddit