So compared to our closest non-linguistic relatives, like the chimps, bonobos and gorillas, which instinctive behaviours have we lost? Be as specific as you like.

(Birds have brains that evolved as elaborations of the basal ganglia rather than of the primitive olfactory association cortex as in mammals. There is a reason why they might have more stereotyped inherited action patterns.)

I'm not a primatologist, so won't pretend to know all these instincts but a major one I can think of is chimps have estrus and cyclical reproduction. They can't help but have a mating season- which implies they cannot help but have offspring. Also, as we all know behaviors are a mix of innate and learned origins. Certainly the "raising a child instinct" is there in apes. The learned part is exactly how to perfect this. Chimp daughters will watch their mothers and assist in the raising of younger offspring, for example. However, there really is no choice in this learned behavior. The daughter cannot just say "eh, this is not for me". It is very much a strong programming that this must be learned.

Thus there is an innate raising a child instinct along with a learned aspect of how to raise the young, but still seems to not be a choice.

I'm not a primatologist, so won't pretend to know all these instincts but a major one I can think of is chimps have estrus and cyclical reproduction. They can't help but have a mating season- which implies they cannot help but have offspring. — schopenhauer1

That's a good example. And one that I was going to mention as an argument in the other direction.

It is theorised that the human shift towards the extreme K strategy end of the mating spectrum - the heavy investment required to being able to raise babies born neurally half-baked and utterly helpless - meant that something had to change to foster strong pair-bondings. Dads had to be given a biological incentive to stick around with the mum.

So the suppression of fertility signals was a neat trick. A male wouldn't know when a female was in heat. There wouldn't be the fighting over the right to mate, and instead the strategy would be to stick close with a female and bond by mating continuously. Females of course still might feel sexier at certain times of the month and go do a little cheating - playing the evolutionary game to their own advantage.

So yeah. Check the literature and all these kinds of things have been well debated.

In this case, it says dads can't help getting roped into being dads, even if the babies may frequently be secretly someone else's. The biology has been set up to nudge behaviour in that direction.

Thus there is an innate raising a child instinct along with a learned aspect of how to raise the young, but still seems to not be a choice. — schopenhauer1

It is good that you are steadily backing away from your original claim of some abrupt evolutionary leap from instinctive to linguistic behaviour.

But in your determination to make anti-natalism a valid philosophical viewpoint, you will still pretend that the desire to have children, the positive joy it can bring to lives, is somehow unnatural.

So far you are not producing the evidence.

The simple logic of Darwinian selection says that producing the next generation has to be the game, whether we are talking of that selection applying at a biological level or a socio-cultural level of evolution.

Sure, there is a sense in which society has become a super-organism with its own existential desires now. You can make that argument - as I do. So as individuals, we are being swept along by forces beyond our control.

But then the other side of that is that this aways was the case. We always were being swept along by evolved and successful cultural structures. And the idea that we have an individual choice is a new feature of the contemporary social order. It is an extra wee trick inserted into the game to increase the possibilities of cultural control while also increasing the requisite variety that evolution itself needs to feed off.

We are culturally evolving to become more culturally evolvable. And that could be a rewarding or unpleasant thing - largely depending on how well it integrates or conflicts with our biological heritage.

The other point I always make is that we can only understand this current phase of our cultural evolution of a species in terms of the exceptionalism of being in a period of exponential, fossil-fuel enabled, species growth.

If there are stresses and strains, it is hardly surprising as this is - right now - a historical rupture in the evolutionary trajectory. In about the space of a century, we are deeply changing what it means to be Homo sapiens.

I'm dubious about the Singulatarian argument. But we can see how one thing follows another with accelerating pace. Social media is producing a world of people with a different mentality.

I guess this is what particularly annoys me about anti-natalism. There is this furious change going on right now before all our eyes. It should be fascinating as well as scary. And then we have all this whiney self-absorbed pessimism.

I understand why there might be an actual epidemic of depressive illness. I understand why there might be a feeling of existential helplessness. But those are symptoms of the more general rupture. And philosophy ought to be focused on where that is all heading. We don't know how to judge it because it is still happening. Meanwhile if you are depressed and helpless, seek treatment. Learn how to dig yourself out of your hole as best you can. Don't use philosophy as your excuse for inaction. Don't use it to block the possibility of making your own life better.

It is theorised that the human shift towards the extreme K strategy end of the mating spectrum - the heavy investment required to being able to raise babies born neurally half-baked and utterly helpless - meant that something had to change to foster strong pair-bondings. Dads had to be given a biological incentive to stick around with the mum.

So the suppression of fertility signals was a neat trick. A male wouldn't know when a female was in heat. There wouldn't be the fighting over the right to mate, and instead the strategy would be to stick close with a female and bond by mating continuously. Females of course still might feel sexier at certain times of the month and go do a little cheating - playing the evolutionary game to their own advantage.

So yeah. Check the literature and all these kinds of things have been well debated. — apokrisis

Correct in terms of being well-debated. The version you give is one version, but as you know there are multiple versions for the origins of the suppression of fertility signals. You (I'd assume) want to avoid as much as I a "just so" story because it sounds plausible. It might be probable given some creative abductive reasoning, but it is not necessarily the factor you describe. It could also be a case of multiple causation as well.

But then the other side of that is that this aways was the case. We always were being swept along by evolved and successful cultural structures. And the idea that we have an individual choice is a new feature of the contemporary social order. It is an extra wee trick inserted into the game to increase the possibilities of cultural control while also increasing the requisite variety that evolution itself needs to feed off. — apokrisis

Okay, so you recognize that the ability to have more possibilities of thought (due to our lingusitic-cultural architecture) has provided us the ability to reflect on existence itself. Something no other species can do. The exaptation that comes from this is we can also see the absurd nature of living. We can have those existential angst moments and see things as repetitious, meaningless, etc. These are things which evolution did not necessarily provide for, but which is a result nonetheless.

I guess this is what particularly annoys me about anti-natalism. There is this furious change going on right now before all our eyes. It should be fascinating as well as scary. And then we have all this whiney self-absorbed pessimism. — apokrisis

Well, this is the assumption you make that annoys me about your self-group argument. You have an assumed (or hidden) underlying teleology in your theory. The group through dynamics is not just "doing" but somehow "progressing" and this is a value judgement that is inserted in the story you present. Though, I understand you do think that "progress" may lead to "extinction" due to fossil fuel overload (and it is almost too late).

I understand why there might be an actual epidemic of depressive illness. I understand why there might be a feeling of existential helplessness. But those are symptoms of the more general rupture. And philosophy ought to be focused on where that is all heading. We don't know how to judge it because it is still happening. Meanwhile if you are depressed and helpless, seek treatment. Learn how to dig yourself out of your hole as best you can. Don't use philosophy as your excuse for inaction. Don't use it to block the possibility of making your own life better. — apokrisis

Thank you for your concern (or what looks like concern). However, existential thinking is squarely what is most important as it is our day-to-day lives and evaluations of our lives. That to me, fits squarely in philosophy as much as it does in other fields. I am not providing anything groundbreaking in that respect. Everything from ancients until now had some existential component to it. It can share the shelf with logic, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, and the other areas of philosophy.

The version you give is one version, but as you know there are multiple versions for the origins of the suppression of fertility signals. — schopenhauer1

But then any version exhibits a belief that the biology counts. Biological evolution suppressed it. Not culture and its impact on cognition.

It's like plastic tits, fake bums and trout pouts. You can blame modern culture for amplifying instinctual signals, but not for creating them.

Okay, so you recognize that the ability to have more possibilities of thought (due to our lingusitic-cultural architecture) has provided us the ability to reflect on existence itself. Something no other species can do. The exaptation that comes from this is we can also see the absurd nature of living. We can have those existential angst moments and see things as repetitious, meaningless, etc. These are things which evolution did not necessarily provide for, but which is a result nonetheless. — schopenhauer1

And then to the degree that there is cultural evolution - a continuation of the Darwinian game - a failure to successfully reproduce will lead to elimination from the meme pool.

If only anti-natalism could have some meaningful braking effect as 7 billion people become 10 billion by 2050 (give or take a few planetary catastrophes along the way).

Well, this is the assumption you make that annoys me about your self-group argument. You have an assumed (or hidden) underlying teleology in your theory. The group through dynamics is not just "doing" but somehow "progressing" and this is a value judgement that is inserted in the story you present. Though, I understand you do think that "progress" may lead to "extinction" due to fossil fuel overload (and it is almost too late). — schopenhauer1

Huh? I am always explicit on the telos.

What we are doing is the unthinking expression of the thermodynamic imperative. We find all this fossil fuel just sitting in the dirt. We can't help just building a great big bonfire out of it.

If we were thinking - and hoping to progress - we would realise that the fossil fuels are driving us. We are blindly responding to their open invitation. If we had any real utopian dreams, we would get back to living off the solar flux. Or waiting until we had the technical means for something actually long-term sustainable, like perhaps fusion power.

Thank you for your concern (or what looks like concern). However, existential thinking is squarely what is most important as it is our day-to-day lives and evaluations of our lives. — schopenhauer1

Well I am saying being passive is another choice. And one that relies on a faulty understanding of human nature.

If you complained quietly to yourself, you of course would get no reaction. But instead you post thread after thread with the same self-pitying lament.

To the degree you have some biological depression (brought on by a social situation), then sure you may get sympathy. And advice.

But a few of us may be here just to discuss actual philosophy. So a BS argument then deserves a good kicking. No apologies or excuses required.

trout pouts — apokrisis

It's like plastic tits, fake bums and trout pouts. You can blame modern culture for amplifying instinctual signals, but not for creating them. — apokrisis

Yet some of what may be considered sexually appealing, may vary based on time period and culture.

Huh? I am always explicit on the telos.

What we are doing is the unthinking expression of the thermodynamic imperative. We find all this fossil fuel just sitting in the dirt. We can't help just building a great big bonfire out of it.

If we were thinking - and hoping to progress - we would realise that the fossil fuels are driving us. We are blindly responding to their open invitation. If we had any real utopian dreams, we would get back to living off the solar flux. Or waiting until we had the technical means for something actually long-term sustainable, like perhaps fusion power. — apokrisis

Ok, so extinction probably. What I mean to say about your telos, is that you deem the group-dynamic at play as good. You are essentially Hegelian via Peirce- instead of the State as the Absolute, it is some technological utopia (again, according to you, if we fix our energy dependence problems).

Well I am saying being passive is another choice. And one that relies on a faulty understanding of human nature.

If you complained quietly to yourself, you of course would get no reaction. But instead you post thread after thread with the same self-pitying lament.

To the degree you have some biological depression (brought on by a social situation), then sure you may get sympathy. And advice.

But a few of us may be here just to discuss actual philosophy. So a BS argument then deserves a good kicking. No apologies or excuses required. — apokrisis

Hey you can be an ahole even if I extend an olive branch, no skin off my back. That's pretty much what I expect from you. I'm just saying the repetitive, absurd nature is there to be discovered. The contingent suffering of being born with this or that disease, or encountering this or that situation, also befalls everyone. Is there a reason why we need to bring more people into the world? What reason you provide never finds an settling answer. So you will appeal to biology and make the false analogy to other animals who cannot help but reproduce and have no existential valuations. Thus, the trope about instinctual to reproduce, while not being the reason for reproduction, becomes one through cultural bolstering. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.