The Philosophy of Early Human Evolution

Sandra Murphy33 said:The bottom line is that life was much harder for the average person in the past than it is for us today.
No, we all know that. That fact is the primary argument used by those who believe evolution is essentially a journey of progress toward making life easier.
The only point of contention here is: Was the person from the past, who had to struggle so much more than we do, actually happier and more satisfied than a person living today?

Obviously, we can't know for sure if things like depression or anxiety existed in ancient hunter-gatherer societies, but some people argue those individuals actually had better mental health than we do in our modern industrial society. Most research is based on contemporary or recently transitioned societies, which are the ones being studied. Some studies actually frame what we call mental illnesses today through an evolutionary lens, viewing them as biological mechanisms that once helped humans survive. You can find quite a few studies and articles online about this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3330161/
https://psyarxiv.com/m9pq2/download

So, I suppose we should keep in mind that human psychology evolved as a tool for species survival under conditions that were fundamentally different from what we face today. Not just slightly different, but completely different. I kind of view it as a sort of psychological allergy. If physical allergies to things like food, pollen, or dust cause bodily reactions because our environment changed, how is that any different from mental struggles like depression in wealthy societies where there isn't a direct threat to our existence? Maybe the body and mind are just overreacting to external circumstances because they're confused by the modern world. That’s just my theory, though; even medicine doesn't fully explain basic allergies yet. We've barely scratched the surface. So, where does that leave psychology in terms of truly understanding mental illness?

Jim Carrey, who found both fame and millions, summed it up like this:

"I guess just getting to the place where you have everything everybody has ever desired and realizing you are still unhappy. And that you can still be unhappy is a shock when you have accomplished everything you ever dreamt of and more and then you realize, “My gosh, it’s not about this.” And I wish for everyone to be able to accomplish those things so they can see that."

"I guess just getting to the place where you have everything everybody has ever desired and realizing you are still unhappy. And that you can still be unhappy is a shock when you have accomplished everything you ever dreamt of and more and then you realize, 'My gosh, it’s not about this.' And I wish for everyone to be able to accomplish those things so they can see that."

ruggedraven36 said:Conflict isn't war—it's the other way around. War is just conflict that finally lost its cool.

Look, I’m telling you—I don't get how you can claim something non-physical is passed down through genetics. And then you just shrug and say, "well, it's genetic"??? That's not an explanation—it's just a circular argument.

😁

Perhaps Amy Bennett is suggesting that since ants build mounds and bees construct hives based on instinctual blueprints, there might be a parallel in humans where certain types of knowledge are hardwired into our DNA?
What does actual science have to say about this? Is there any validity to making such a direct comparison or literal translation of biological programming to cognitive knowledge?

Sandra Murphy33 said:One could easily misinterpret Hegel’s concept of necessity as something predetermined or inevitable—as if it were the "only way things could be," or perhaps even the "best possible" outcome.
But that isn't how Hegel works. For him, necessity simply refers to what has already actualized. It isn't a moral or teleological claim that things "ought" to be a certain way.

("Actual necessity is, in fact, also contingent .... that which is real is necessary in its form, yet it remains limited in its content, and within that limitation, it possesses its own contingency. ...
Real possibility is established as the counterpoint to reality and possibility; therefore, real necessity inherently contains contingency. ...
In this sense, there exists a unity between necessity and contingency; this unity is what we must call absolute reality" Hegel, Vol. 2, 161)

That’s a lot of philosophical jargon just to say "it is what it is."

ruggedraven36 said:Conflict isn't war—it's the other way around. War is just conflict that finally lost its cool.

Look, I’m telling you—I don't get how you can claim something non-physical is passed down through genetics. And then you just shrug and say, "well, it's genetic"??? That's not an explanation—it's just a circular argument.

That feels like a pretty reductive way to look at war.

I'm saying I don't see how something non-physical can be passed down genetically, and you respond with "well, genetically"???

Because it is an outgrowth of the physical.

Sandra Murphy33 said:😁

Perhaps Amy Bennett is suggesting that since ants build mounds and bees construct hives based on instinctual blueprints, there might be a parallel in humans where certain types of knowledge are hardwired into our DNA?
What does actual science have to say about this? Is there any validity to making such a direct comparison or literal translation of biological programming to cognitive knowledge?

Someone mentioned earlier that humans have certain innate fears—you know, things like snakes, spiders, the dark, heights, and so on. Or just those deep-seated biological aversions to certain things.

Sure, humans are far more adaptable than most other animals—we’re incredibly plastic in how we learn—but that doesn't change the fact that we are biologically determined in some fundamental ways, much like how our social class might be influenced by our circumstances.

Sandra Murphy33 said:😁

Perhaps Amy Bennett is suggesting that since ants build mounds and bees construct hives based on instinctual blueprints, there might be a parallel in humans where certain types of knowledge are hardwired into our DNA?
What does actual science have to say about this? Is there any validity to making such a direct comparison or literal translation of biological programming to cognitive knowledge?

Do you think instincts or primal urges are actually inherited genetically? 🤔

Amy Bennett said:Someone mentioned earlier that humans have certain innate fears—you know, things like snakes, spiders, the dark, heights, and so on. Or just those deep-seated biological aversions to certain things.

Sure, humans are far more adaptable than most other animals—we’re incredibly plastic in how we learn—but that doesn't change the fact that we are biologically determined in some fundamental ways, much like how our social class might be influenced by our circumstances.

I can see the logic behind the idea that social classes are natural if you're only looking at different power dynamics emerging during crises. In those moments, individuals step up to lead, creating hierarchies based on who can navigate the chaos—at least according to the historical accounts we've read (though, frankly, that feels like a romanticized version of reality that might just be propaganda). Back before mass weaponry made warfare easy, these situations produced negotiators and leaders.

But those aren't classes.

According to various archaeological findings, early human societies—like those in the Neolithic era—were built on cooperation and equality. Everyone held equal weight, especially during peaceful times when there was no functional need for a supreme leader to dictate terms to the group. To the earliest humans, who hadn't yet been burdened by the long history of warfare we deal with today, such a concept would have seemed absurd.
There is even a theory suggesting that the first warrior tribes, which disrupted the peace and stability of those Neolithic communities, migrated down from the north.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Obviously, we can't know for sure if things like depression or anxiety existed in ancient hunter-gatherer societies, but some people argue those individuals actually had better mental health than we do in our modern industrial society. Most research is based on contemporary or recently transitioned societies, which are the ones being studied. Some studies actually frame what we call mental illnesses today through an evolutionary lens, viewing them as biological mechanisms that once helped humans survive. You can find quite a few studies and articles online about this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3330161/
https://psyarxiv.com/m9pq2/download

So, I suppose we should keep in mind that human psychology evolved as a tool for species survival under conditions that were fundamentally different from what we face today. Not just slightly different, but completely different. I kind of view it as a sort of psychological allergy. If physical allergies to things like food, pollen, or dust cause bodily reactions because our environment changed, how is that any different from mental struggles like depression in wealthy societies where there isn't a direct threat to our existence? Maybe the body and mind are just overreacting to external circumstances because they're confused by the modern world. That’s just my theory, though; even medicine doesn't fully explain basic allergies yet. We've barely scratched the surface. So, where does that leave psychology in terms of truly understanding mental illness?

Jim Carrey, who found both fame and millions, summed it up like this:

"I guess just getting to the place where you have everything everybody has ever desired and realizing you are still unhappy. And that you can still be unhappy is a shock when you have accomplished everything you ever dreamt of and more and then you realize, “My gosh, it’s not about this.” And I wish for everyone to be able to accomplish those things so they can see that."

"I guess just getting to the place where you have everything everybody has ever desired and realizing you are still unhappy. And that you can still be unhappy is a shock when you have accomplished everything you ever dreamt of and more and then you realize, 'My gosh, it’s not about this.' And I wish for everyone to be able to accomplish those things so they can see that."

👍

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Do you think instincts or primal urges are actually inherited genetically? 🤔

Nope. Instincts and raw drives were around long before we even knew what genetics was—that field didn't even kick off until the mid-1800s.

ruggedraven36 said:Nope. Instincts and raw drives were around long before we even knew what genetics was—that field didn't even kick off until the mid-1800s.

Totally. But does that mean instincts and drives are actually passed down through our genes? I guess my own bad luck might be 😁

Sandra Murphy33 said:It always irritates me slightly when someone starts to debate—that is, presenting an argument using specific language and concepts—only to suddenly take a pseudo-religious leap into "intuition" and "ineffable truths" because they don't know how to develop their point further.😵
If you can't fully articulate something, then don't start in the first place; that seems like the only logical and honest approach to me.
I am not imposing anything on you; I am simply asking how, within a materialist paradigm, you believe the freedom mentioned by John is possible—specifically, a type of freedom that can only exist if everyone is treated equally.

I am relying on pure physics here: enslaving someone disrupts the freedom of the enslaver, because their own freedom is reduced by the material obligation of caring for the enslaved.
Anyway, I’m not imputing anything to you; I’m just asking.

There you go; you actually managed to use words to explain how those who infringe upon another's freedom simultaneously undermine their own. The difference is that those who practice enslavement don't perceive it the way you do. They don't feel the weight of power over others as a burden. Anyone who actually viewed power as a burden would abandon it immediately (and there have been such people).
The reality is that in the materialist paradigm we live in—where we view ourselves as separate entities driven by the goal of physical survival—it is impossible for one group or individual to respect the freedom of another toward whom they feel no obligation or responsibility.

I want to emphasize that second paragraph. This is something that genuinely gets under my skin—I can't quite tell if what you've provided is meant to be an explanation, a personal stance, or merely a theory you're describing as we talk, but these are thoughts that a wild animal—say, a tiger—would express with equal clarity if it possessed the gift of human speech.

That is precisely part of what haunts me—something that develops within a person and has absolutely nothing to do with humanity or being civilized, even before this whole discussion even began.

It is something entirely primal and raw, which manages to find its way into the modern world, persisting even through our most complex linguistic terminology.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Totally. But does that mean instincts and drives are actually passed down through our genes? I guess my own bad luck might be 😁

They absolutely do. And honestly, plenty of other things pass down too—stuff you wouldn't even think to look for. We're talking everything from language predispositions and intuition to facial expressions and various temperament tendencies.

Ethan Gomez82 said:They absolutely do. And honestly, plenty of other things pass down too—stuff you wouldn't even think to look for. We're talking everything from language predispositions and intuition to facial expressions and various temperament tendencies.

We're talking everything from personality traits and emotional reactions to cognitive skills, political views, and general behavior.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that—it looks like you might have cut off mid-sentence. Could you please finish your thought? I'd love to hear what you were going to say. Amy Bennett says:
I can see the logic behind the idea that social classes are "natural"—if you’re looking at them strictly through the lens of power dynamics during a crisis. It seems like those high-stakes moments—at least based on what we've read, though I suspect we might be looking at a somewhat romanticized, perhaps even programmed, version of history—are exactly what birthed various wartime negotiators and strategic leaders. Back before mass weaponry made conflict so easy to trigger, these specific roles had to emerge just to navigate the chaos.

But honestly—those aren't really classes.

I’ve been thinking that the rise of sedentary societies and true civilization was essentially driven by the need for specialization and a more structured division of labor. It’s almost like an evolutionary ecology—where the social structures we build actually shape us just as much as our environment shapes those structures through selection processes. Of course, there were foundational divisions long before this—things like gender roles or more primal social hierarchies—though they were probably a lot more fluid back then. To me, the whole point of class systems is simply to ensure that specific social functions are being met.

Class structures aren't just some uniquely human invention—social insects actually follow similar patterns for much of the same reasons. With humans, though, it’s a bit more complicated because class divisions tend to be reinforced by historical momentum and social reproductive barriers. It basically creates this functional division of labor that acts as a sort of qualitative safeguard for those in leadership positions.

Based on some archaeological research out there, it seems like the earliest human communities—think Neolithic era—were actually built on cooperation and a sense of true equality among all members. Especially during peaceful stretches, there just wasn't any real need for a supreme leader to step in and make calls that didn't even affect them. Honestly, that whole concept of top-down authority would have probably seemed pretty ridiculous to those early people, back when we were still free from the long, messy history of warfare that we’re so "honored" by today.
There’s this theory floating around suggesting that the very first warrior tribes—the ones who essentially shattered the peace and quiet of those early Neolithic communities—actually migrated down from the North.

That was actually championed by Litavka Marija Gimbutas. It’s pretty interesting when you look at her work—she was an early advocate for the steppe (Kurgan) hypothesis regarding the origins of Indo-European languages. At the time, suggesting that Indo-European societies were warrior-oriented was a bit of a taboo subject following World War II, mostly because of those uncomfortable parallels with German Aryan theories. Because of that, most disciplines tended to lean toward non-violent explanations like cultural diffusion. In the end, though, Gimbutas was right about the steppe hypothesis. The Indo-European languages did spread from the Southern United States area—which is that northern region you're mentioning—and their culture was undeniably warrior-centric. That’s since been backed up by everything from archaeological finds to, even more convincingly, archaeogenetic research.

Where she actually missed the mark was that whole thesis about Neolithic societies being inherently peaceful. Those early farming civilizations weren't some utopia—they were just as warlike, brutal, and violent as the Indo-European groups living alongside them (well, maybe not identical, but certainly much more aggressive when you compare them to our modern world). Today, we have plenty of evidence to back that up—enough, honestly, to see those mass, genocidal burial sites from the Neolithic era. So, that whole feminist, matriarchal theory regarding early agricultural societies? It just doesn't hold water.

Of course, none of that implies these societies were exclusively violent or warlike in some kind of cartoonish way—that’s definitely not the case.

Nea-- said:Anyway, Amy Bennett, how exactly are you naturally class-determined?
I've always wondered 🙂

Not at all.

Harold Doyle3 said:It's off.

The whole thing comes down to dynamic circumstances.
If you're living in abundance and everything is peaceful, there's zero incentive to change.
Someone once wrote—and I'm paraphrasing here—that evolution races down mountain streams but crawls through river valleys.
We didn't just wake up one day and decide to innovate; circumstances forced our hands.
In sports terms: you don't mess with a winning roster.
Our ancestors had to get off those trees because they had to. They had to stand upright, they had to harness fire, they had to invent calendars, they had to build atomic bombs... Hegel and his followers would call that historical necessity.

Following that logic, it would imply that early humans lived in plenty for ages, which is why their evolution would have stalled—a claim that flies in the face of actual history. On the flip side, it would suggest that modern times (our era of abundance) shouldn't coincide with our greatest period of advancement, which is exactly when it happened... it’s just completely inconsistent reasoning when you look at how history actually unfolds.

That line of thinking is basically just a variation of the idea that conflict and war are necessary drivers of evolutionary progress, and I couldn't disagree more.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Totally. But does that mean instincts and drives are actually passed down through our genes? I guess my own bad luck might be 😁

From what I gather, genes basically just act as a blueprint for protein synthesis. But if you're asking whether those deep-seated instincts are passed down through the generations, then yeah, they absolutely are.

Amanda Jackson5 said:From what I gather, genes basically just act as a blueprint for protein synthesis. But if you're asking whether those deep-seated instincts are passed down through the generations, then yeah, they absolutely are.

That’s actually why I was asking, because 😉

Quincy:

But if the question is whether instincts themselves are inherited, then I suppose the answer is a definite yes.

I guess I'm just wondering about the actual mechanisms behind that?

Sandra Murphy33 said:It always irritates me slightly when someone starts to debate—that is, presenting an argument using specific language and concepts—only to suddenly take a pseudo-religious leap into "intuition" and "ineffable truths" because they don't know how to develop their point further.😵
If you can't fully articulate something, then don't start in the first place; that seems like the only logical and honest approach to me.
I am not imposing anything on you; I am simply asking how, within a materialist paradigm, you believe the freedom mentioned by John is possible—specifically, a type of freedom that can only exist if everyone is treated equally.

I am relying on pure physics here: enslaving someone disrupts the freedom of the enslaver, because their own freedom is reduced by the material obligation of caring for the enslaved.
Anyway, I’m not imputing anything to you; I’m just asking.

There you go; you actually managed to use words to explain how those who infringe upon another's freedom simultaneously undermine their own. The difference is that those who practice enslavement don't perceive it the way you do. They don't feel the weight of power over others as a burden. Anyone who actually viewed power as a burden would abandon it immediately (and there have been such people).
The reality is that in the materialist paradigm we live in—where we view ourselves as separate entities driven by the goal of physical survival—it is impossible for one group or individual to respect the freedom of another toward whom they feel no obligation or responsibility.

There wasn't any kind of pseudo-spiritual leap involved here, so I don't see it. Just because someone mentions an "intuitive understanding..." doesn't mean they've abandoned logic, and besides, nobody is under any obligation to
explain everything perfectly, otherwise we'd all just stay silent.😳 I have to admit, it does get on my nerves a bit too when people try to debate things using that kind of reasoning.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Totally. But does that mean instincts and drives are actually passed down through our genes? I guess my own bad luck might be 😁

I’m not sure, but if what Amanda Jackson5 is saying is right—that genes only carry the blueprints for protein synthesis and nothing else—then it makes sense. If we were passing down deep-seated drives, fears, and all those other traits people talk about through DNA, they’d have to be microscopic to fit inside a gene. Some of these impulses are massive, so it’s hard to believe they're tucked away in something that small.

ruggedraven36 said:I’m not sure, but if what Amanda Jackson5 is saying is right—that genes only carry the blueprints for protein synthesis and nothing else—then it makes sense. If we were passing down deep-seated drives, fears, and all those other traits people talk about through DNA, they’d have to be microscopic to fit inside a gene. Some of these impulses are massive, so it’s hard to believe they're tucked away in something that small.

"Generally speaking, research into political thought and behavior has reached a stage where we need to start thinking about building and testing much more complex models. A whole bunch of causal factors—genes, personality, attitudes, social groups, cognitive processes, motivation, political institutions, and so on—all contribute to political thought and behavior. Even if the social sciences don't quite have the theoretical bridge to link all these different concepts and approaches together right now, it's vital for researchers to stay aware of what we call multiple determinism."

Cacioppo, J. T. and Visser, P. S. 2003. Political Psychology and Social Neuroscience: Strange Bedfellows or Comrades in Arms? Political Psychology (24), 4: 647-656. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9221.2003.00345.x

ruggedraven36 said:I’m not sure, but if what Amanda Jackson5 is saying is right—that genes only carry the blueprints for protein synthesis and nothing else—then it makes sense. If we were passing down deep-seated drives, fears, and all those other traits people talk about through DNA, they’d have to be microscopic to fit inside a gene. Some of these impulses are massive, so it’s hard to believe they're tucked away in something that small.

Honestly, this whole argument is on the same level as that old joke about the guy whose computer runs out of disk space, so he just opens every single Word document he owns and shrinks the font size, wondering why it didn't solve his storage problem.