The problem is you keep forgetting what your thesis is. — Olivier5

That hunter gatherers do not have existential crises about their ethical or executive freedoms. Showing that native Americans preferred their prior existence is hardly relevant.

That hunter gatherers do not have existential crises about their ethical or executive freedoms. — Kenosha Kid

Nope. You said:

Like morality, the question of what meaning we should find for ourselves arises precisely because we are living in an environment starkly different from anything that had any bearing on our evolution, thus evolution cannot answer the question. Hunter-gatherers likely did not have these profound questions. — Kenosha Kid

(my bolding)

I presented quotes about the meaning of our lives, as parts of nature, from a Native American writer, including one directly impinging on the questions raised by this thread ("lack of respect for growing, living things soon lead to a lack of respect for humans").

Nope. You said:

Like morality, the question of what meaning we should find for ourselves — Olivier5

Yes, that's what I meant by executive freedom. What you posted was a man regretting that his hunter-gatherer existence had been overturned by a more powerful non-hunter-gatherer lifestyle. That's not pertinent. What would be pertinent would be data from actual hunting and gathering tribes that had never been otherwise that showed existential doubt about the meanings of their lives or how they should behave with one another. If you know of anything I'd be interested, not for this thread; for something else.

You're not listening anyway.

You're not listening. — Olivier5

I am. You're missing the point. What I want to know about is not former hunter gatherers reminiscing, but actually hunter gatherers with existential angst. I've given up on you ever understanding and am looking into myself.

Google is your friend. You should have researched your subject earlier.

Google is your friend. You should have researched your subject earlier. — Olivier5

I have, for the other thread quite extensively. Hunter-gatherer tribes tend to have strict, fairly static ethics and ways of life. There is typically no disagreement on what is right and good. I've seen zero evidence that hunter gatherers worry about the meanings of their lives.

I've seen zero evidence that hunter gatherers worry about the meanings of their lives. — Kenosha Kid

What part of "This concept of life and its relations was humanizing and gave to the Lakota an abiding love. It filled his being with the joy and mystery of living; it gave him reverence for all life; it made a place for all things in the scheme of existence with equal importance to all" did you fail to see, read, or understand?

What part of "This concept of life and its relations was humanizing and gave to the Lakota an abiding love. It filled his being with the joy and mystery of living; it gave him reverence for all life; it made a place for all things in the scheme of existence with equal importance to all" did you fail to see, read, or understand? — Olivier5

The difference between A) a hunter-gatherer tribe which knows of no other existence, small, close groups based on cooperation and like-mindedness, and B) a hunter-gatherer group destroyed by a more powerful non-hunter-gatherer group, forced to adopt a completely different lifestyle based on less egalitarian and fair-minded principles, does not seem subtle to me. In fact it seems immense. How is it that no matter how often you look at this difference, you completely miss it?

How is this difference bearing on your question?

And how the heck are we supposed to know of a tribe who knows of no other existence??????
:gasp:

I’m still curious where Singer fits into this conversation.

Two tribesmen from Papua New Guinea head off on an expedition in the heart of a strange and entirely new kind of civilization: they want to explore everything, taste everything, and try everything - an absurd and wonderful marathon to discover France.

How is this difference bearing on your question? — Olivier5

How could it not? My suggestion to Wayfarer was the sort of existential doubt about meaning he discussed, and about morality as discussed in the thread I mentioned, would not likely occur in hunter-gatherer groups. Your quote if anything supports this, since his ode to his former way of life is very sure about its correctness.

And how the heck are we supposed to know of a tribe who knows of no other existence?????? — Olivier5

As I already explained to you, less invasive contact with hunter-gatherer tribes, e.g. Levi Strauss, while still not ideal, would be informative.

The particular thing I was just looking into was how peaceful tribes become warrior tribes. Anthropological evidence suggests that the default reaction to another tribe is one of mutual respect and reciprocal altruism: an extension of how individuals within a single tribe treat each other. Tribes only tend to become hostile to other tribes only once they've encountered a warrior tribe. (War is a cancer.)

What would be interesting is how they handle the transition. Is there disagreement, schism? Does anyone think what they're doing is wrong? And if so is it merely transitory? That's an example of existential doubt in a hunter-gatherer tribe.

I’m still curious where Singer fits into this conversation. — Pfhorrest

Did I miss Rand? I thought we were working from left to right.

his ode to his former way of life is very sure about its correctness. — Kenosha Kid

And you are very sure of your own correctness too, so this is nor here nor there... The question of Wayfarer had to do with the meaning of life and final causes as potentially valid questions. It never was about doubting your way of life in some form of extreme existential angst... You keep losing the plot.

Will watch.

Ever see The Gods Must Be Crazy?

I thought Nietzsche, Hobbes, Mackie and Rand were obvious for their egotism/nihilism, but I don’t see how someone like Singer who wrings his hands over even animal suffering factors into this conversation.

Yes, but the Reverse Exploration is not a fiction, it's a documentary, seen from the perspective of two Papuan chiefs exploring France. The guys constantly wonder out loud about what they are seeing. So like a movie about some white explorator in Papuasia would follow the thinking process of the explorator, you can follow their reasoning at all time.

At one point they go with a group of French hunters dressed up in fluorescent garb to avoid killing one another (:pray:) and with a number of barking dogs, and then the two chiefs look at one another in disbelief, and one says: "Bunch of fools. They never going to kill anything dressed up like that. All the animals can see and hear them..."

Sounds cool and I will watch -- does the filmmaker explain in the film how he came to be doing this? If so, I'll see it, but if not I'd be curious.

Yes, he was making a reportage in Papuasia, stayed with them for a long time, and at some point the idea came up to reciprocate.

Lovely.

I'm going to start a thread in the Lounge for documentary recommendations, starting with this one.

Okay, cool.

One of the things that really dawns on you watching is how easy it is to misinterpret strange customs from afar, but also in all fairness, the efforts that those guys really invest in understanding what they see. They need to be able to explain the country to their family and friend when they come back (as any normal explorator must do, and you also see some of that restitution at home in the documentary), and therefore they really try to see a lot and probe their subject with questions. They try to be fair and evidence-based in their judgement.

1. Research into the possible genetic basis of altruism was represented by Dawkins under a title referring to selfishness, against all logic. Why? Probably because this way it could sell better in the zeitgeist, and incidentally served to justify rightist policies, whereas the idea that evolution rewards altruism would presumably have had the opposite political effect. — Olivier5

So the whole problem with TSG is the title.

2. The reason Midgley was furious about Gene the Shellfish was that it described human beings as slaves to their genes. Such full biological determinism is eminently ideological -- it tells people that they are not free -- and it's an ideology with dark history (eugenism, racism, slavery, nazism, etc.). — Olivier5

I think you are giving Dawkins and Darwin too much credit. We had eugenism, racism, slavery, nazism, etc. long before either (OK, maybe the Romans didn't call themselves Nazis).

Yes, full biological determinism certainly leads to some very problematical conclusions. But that isn't a good enough reason to reject the theory of gene selection. The question is: Is the theory correct or incorrect? If the theory is correct, then we have to figure out how to deal with that reality. We can't reject the science just because we don't like the result.

So the whole problem with TSG is the title. — flaco

I suppose this title represents the book's thesis, no? My point is that there is something fishy about his presentation of a theory about the possibility that altruism was selected naturally, under a title that says the exact opposite...

think you are giving Dawkins and Darwin too much credit. We had eugenism, racism, slavery, nazism, etc. long before either (OK, maybe the Romans didn't call themselves Nazis). — flaco

Yes but not a scientific theoretical basis for same.

Yes but not a scientific theoretical basis for same. — Olivier5

Darwin provided some people with a scientific theoretical basis for theories of racial superiority/inferiority (survival of the fittest organism). By shifting emphasis to gene selection, Dawkins demonstrated how natural selection can support altruism.

By shifting emphasis to gene selection, Dawkins demonstrated how natural selection can support altruism. — flaco

1. The demonstration was not his but from Hamilton and Price.

2. Price's math is actually based on kin selection, a form of group selection. The exclusive focus on genes is misleading.

3. For some yet unknown reason, Dawkins misrepresented the thesis in his book, turning a work on altruism into a book on the selfishness of genes.

For some yet unknown reason, Dawkins misrepresented the thesis in his book, turning a work on altruism into a book on the selfishness of genes. — Olivier5

This is still the book you assessed in 2 seconds without reading, right?

why the title, do you think? Why this conclusion? ("We are born selfish") You've read the book, right? It didn't strike you as odd?

It does strike me as odd. Even the idea of the zeitgeist doesn't quite cut it: I've read enough of his socio-political protestations to see that he doesn't sit easily with Milton and Thatcher... There must be something else.

You all havin' fun?

Back to cats. Or rather, to the genes of Toxoplasma gondii. This little plasmid is responsible for the rise of civilisation, which it did simply in order to reproduce its genes. It found a way to make rats like the smell of cat urine. This enabled it to move from its accustomed habitat, the rat, to its favoured reproductive host, the cat. Once it had mastered the trick of changing the way mammals think, it went big time and moved host to humans, convincing them to look after cats. The need to look after cats led to agriculture, so that there was a plentiful supply of grain for the mice and rats that form the cat's diet.

You know it's true.

Behold, your true master:

Back to cats. — Banno

Everything comes back to cats. Even aliens, as this Nazca Lines image shows. Or maybe it shows cats are aliens. I forget which.

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-peru-unveils-giant-cat-etching.html