Is that true? That sounds like something someone would just say with no factual backing. I read a fair bit recreationally about pre European societies and I haven’t seen some universal truth about screwing each other over for some action.
There were and presumably are many societies that treat procreation and child rearing completely differently than we do today. Once you stop looking at your neighbors kids as “theirs” and seeing them as “ours” there isn’t much drive to compete with them.
Once you stop looking at your neighbors kids as “theirs” and seeing them as “ours” there isn’t much drive to compete with them.
I’m not talking about an ideology or culture, I’m talking about how biological life functions. You’ll never see your neighbours’ kids as carrying your own genes and your genes are the primary concern of the biological drives that underlie human behaviour.
Evolutionary psychology does tend to strictly reduce human nature - and nature in general - to some cruel law of the fittest, as well as denying there is any debate to be had. It’s basically genetic determinism. Nevertheless, altruism is deeply seated in our behaviours and does go as far as collective child-rearing, or alloparenting.
There is still heated debate about why and how altruism expresses itself in human behaviour despite the apparent competitiveness of basic Darwinian evolution. In practice altruism and competitiveness are both present in humanity and we do have agency over how the balance tilts.
altruism is deeply seated in our behaviours and does go as far as collective child-rearing
Indeed. But it doesn’t preclude otherwise screwing people over.
Nothing you’ve said contradicts anything I’ve said. Ensuring one’s own survival by altruistically caring for infants doesn’t mean one sees those infants as carriers of one’s own genes. Genetic relatives, especially offspring, are always one’s primary concern. Because they share one’s genes.
Is that true? That sounds like something someone would just say with no factual backing. I read a fair bit recreationally about pre European societies and I haven’t seen some universal truth about screwing each other over for some action.
There were and presumably are many societies that treat procreation and child rearing completely differently than we do today. Once you stop looking at your neighbors kids as “theirs” and seeing them as “ours” there isn’t much drive to compete with them.
LOL do you expect me to say “no”?
https://lmsptfy.com/?q=evolutionary psychology mating behaviour
I’m not talking about an ideology or culture, I’m talking about how biological life functions. You’ll never see your neighbours’ kids as carrying your own genes and your genes are the primary concern of the biological drives that underlie human behaviour.
Evolutionary psychology does tend to strictly reduce human nature - and nature in general - to some cruel law of the fittest, as well as denying there is any debate to be had. It’s basically genetic determinism. Nevertheless, altruism is deeply seated in our behaviours and does go as far as collective child-rearing, or alloparenting.
There is still heated debate about why and how altruism expresses itself in human behaviour despite the apparent competitiveness of basic Darwinian evolution. In practice altruism and competitiveness are both present in humanity and we do have agency over how the balance tilts.
Indeed. But it doesn’t preclude otherwise screwing people over.
Nothing you’ve said contradicts anything I’ve said. Ensuring one’s own survival by altruistically caring for infants doesn’t mean one sees those infants as carriers of one’s own genes. Genetic relatives, especially offspring, are always one’s primary concern. Because they share one’s genes.