When the structural elements are riddled with dry rot, I don't waste my time plastering the walls. — Vera Mont

Future generations will prevent such dry rot getting hold in the first place, at least better than your or my generations where able to. But I think we did, and continue to do ok, all things considered.

Such as who? — 180 Proof

I don't have any particular names and addresses from a few hundred years ago that might fit.
Perhaps many of those who still believe we have never landed on the moon have ancestors that might fit my description, but I accept that I have no particular prominent names from that time period, who publicly stated, that landing on the moon was impossible. Does that prove none existed?
If I am a bit of a fantasist then You are a bit of a pessimistic doomster after all.

And that's due to evolution, is it? — Vera Mont

I will leave the scientists to fully answer that one?

As have I and many others before us. It sounds good, and then it is either snuffed in infancy or else corrupted in its early youth. So far. Maybe next time, it'll be different and the pigs really will fly. — Vera Mont

You tire too easily Vera. 'If at first we don't succeed, try try again,' has no upper limit on the number of try's. The system we advocate is not impossible, so it's not like the attempt is to reach perfection. 'Better,' is always within the realms of human aspiration.

Given the actual facts on the actual ground, it seems rational to me. — Vera Mont

I accept that is your position.

Note that aggression and predation have persisted all these millions of years; the lion may lie down with the lamb - inside him. — Vera Mont

You should watch this imo, 'feel good' doc Vera. Even members of different animal species can bond, and make new relationships, unlike any that have gone before:

You seem to be stuck on fantasy (à la faith), universeness. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

:grin: And your position, to me, is akin to those a few hundred years ago, who thought humans landing on the moon was impossible.

More valuable and infinitely less influential. — Vera Mont

Yes, this is and always has been the status quo, but as it has on many occasions before, the status quo can change, no matter how long it has been so.

About 50% of any modern economy rubs on unpaid labour, one way or another: volunteers, students, neighbours, friends, family, all helping one another out or contributing to the community's welfare. None of these people set the nation's economic policy. — Vera Mont

I have described to you a political system that could change this. You keep offering examples of the way things were or are and seem so ossified in your insistence that this status quo is utterly immutable, which to me seems irrational, and even disproved by natural evolution, where change is prevalent.

It's the generals and presidents and Ceo's who get commemorative portraits in ugly gilt frames, prominently displayed in marble foyers, or heroic statues in public squares. They run the world. The helping and working people might be given a plaque next to a doorway, or a dusty photograph in a school library. They keep the world running. — Vera Mont

Is a celebrity based reward system immutable? Do we have to keep insisting that this guy or gal did a thing and just keep ignoring all the others involved or the previous work they were/are so utterly dependent on? Will we each always be 'lesser,' than the 'heros'/'gods'/'celebrities,' we admire. I reject that presumption completely. I think we can each do better, and we can each do so, without becoming arrogant prats. We are now very familiar indeed with celebrity / aristocratic / divinity / elitist based leaders and leadership. It's a bad system that we need to reject imo.
Carl Sagan was a fantastic influencer imo, but also imo, his main goal was to raise others to have the same personal value, that I think he (and the Jeff Daniels character, in his wee speech in Gettysburg,) held and expressed. I used to call Carl 'one of my heroes'. I fight that urge now, and try to now describe him as one of my main influencers, but as 'people with value,' Carl and I are equal in status, as we all are equal in such, compared to anyone alive today or in history, including fantasy characters such as god.

That good is reliant on our abundance and that is very threatened right now. — Athena

For balance, when the scenario starts with 'At our best....,' It is imbalanced imo, to not mention the many historical and current examples, of people who demonstrate:

more empathy, altruism, cooperation, good morality standards and an ability and fierce motivation to be a net positive towards our environment and everything in it — universeness

when all hell is breaking loose all around them.
Some folks who are currently quite safe and who might even enjoy 'abundance,' will often travel to other lands and put their lives in serious danger, (and often lose their life) to help save the civilians, and even combatants, on both sides of a war. Not just in war zones but also during famine, natural disasters, etc etc. They just wanna help, and many of them don't even need a religion to compel them to do so. Some of the actions you have taken in the past, suggest to me, that you yourself, are capable of, and have demonstrated, such tendencies towards helping others and I am braced by the fact that such folks exist in large numbers, and represent 'us' and 'them' at our best.
To me, each such person is more valuable than most Kings, Popes, Messiahs, or Elon Musks, I have ever heard of, that was, or may have been an actual real person who lives or has lived and did actually perform the events credited to them.

:lol: Fair enough Bret!

@Athena
What do think of this short speech from the film Gettysburg?
Do you think that some of the sentences uttered here were an important part of the American psyche during those times? Do you consider such as pure Hollywood style twaddle?

The 'them' mirror.

... but mostly, friend, they willingly live like
dogs and sheep. — 180 Proof

The mirror reflects 'us,' as 'them.' You choose to only see them darkly, as being willing to live like dogs or sheep, with not enough examples to the contrary, in your mind or in your experience, that you value more. Btw, can't beat a bit of Pink Floyd!

Wow! That certainly is through a mirror darkly.

Yeah , sorry Vera, I forgot you were living in Canada, which in my 'younger youth', I though was an indigenous tribal word for 'new Scotland,' which also translated to Nova Scotia. :lol:
The Glasgow in Nova Scotia is on my travel 'must go see' list. Have you ever been?

leaned towards democratic socialism — 0 thru 9

I joined the Labour Party in Scotland and their cooperative Labour Party section and their young socialists section, when I was 17. I had clause 4 of the Labour Party painted along the top of my bedroom walls (in old English script), so 'leaned towards,' made me smile.

I left the party, when I eventually understood what Tony Blair and his mob were about.
I eventually supported Scottish independence, as I saw a road from there to the possibility of Scotland becoming a truly democratic socialist nation. I have always been an atheist, so secular humanism followed, as I consider such to be symbiotic with democratic socialism.

I am now against all party politics, as I think party politics has failed badly at all levels. I now support democratic socialist, non-party based, secular humanist, global governance and a resource based global economy. Perhaps that will give you a clearer base, for any of my future/past posts you are kind enough to read and consider.

But that’s how you worded it. Either / or. And that’s an invitation for purging the dissenters and foot-draggers. — 0 thru 9

The fact that there is a spectrum of intensity when it comes to how much an individual is part of a particular problem or a particular solution, does not prevent each individual being assessed as falling into one of those two categories. Part of the problem or the solution, is merely a convenient way to put it, but, taking such to one of the more extreme but real examples, such categorisations of individuals should never mean that even those who just worked for an Aristo, also get their heads guillotined.

You do not speak like a skeptic of anything related to Tech or the owners of such. — 0 thru 9

Then let me try to be clear. I support all tech advances and all attempts to create a tech advance but I do not support the private ownership or distribution of such. My broad goal would be to employ any tech only when it is proven as a net benefit to all existents it can affect, or at least to the vast majority. I do realise that this is a very difficult standard to reach for every example but it does need to be the main standard set, imo.

We need more than “checks and balances” to defeat the “nefarious few” (as you aptly call them).
Been there, done that: they have gamed the system until their wallets overflowed.
I’m not asking for specifics on how to defeat the 1% and pry the remote control out of their cold dead hand lol. I don’t know either. — 0 thru 9

I disagree and I think adequate check and balances do exist and do work. The battle to prevent them being foiled will, I agree, always have failures but hopefully these will be further reduced by better and better checks and balances.

But as a very general direction saying “we the people” comes through as a platitude in a rote political speech. — 0 thru 9

Such an opinion does not detract from the validity and just statement starting 'We the people,' especially when it will eventually refer to the majority of the humans alive at the time.

We as a people are NOT the stakeholders now, if we ever were, and things are moving in the wrong direction. — 0 thru 9

No offence, but I think that is just nonsense and ignores all of the efforts people are making every day to change the future for the better. They will eventually succeed imo.

You seem to be asking for a lot of faith in this system you are describing, and trust in Elon Musk and like visionaries.
Basically, it is the capitalist status quo in hip new clothes. — 0 thru 9

I am a secular humanist and a democratic socialist. Elon Musk is a net negative as an influencer and unfettered capitalism is utterly pernicious and its practice needs to be ended. Only small capitalism can be contained, so that is all that should be tolerated, imo.

Like I've been saying all along: It is my understanding that passages like the one quoted from Smith are meant to be taken as instructions, in an ideological sense, not as descriptions based on empirical observations.
— baker
AKA wishful thinking. — Vera Mont

:up:

So, like any instructions that cause very negative outcomes, for the majority of all people, we all need to learn how to better identify such and disregard such.

Nope. Cynical, burnt-out iconoclast. — Vera Mont

How sad you became so defeated, but such has happened to many, even to some in the socialist movement that were my 'heroes' in my youth. I am glad there are many who will continue fighting.
At least (I can be assured, I think) that you will never wear a maga cap and go vote for trump (if he is still around) at the next USA election.

Don't forget, mate: at our best we're primates, not angels. — 180 Proof

At our best, I think humans demonstrate far far more empathy, altruism, cooperation, good morality standards and an ability and fierce motivation to be a net positive towards our environment and everything in it, compared to both of them, especially when one of them does not exist.

Addition: Just to be clear, I fully accept that we are primates, but my point was from the position of being the best of them, and then being at OUR best.

Well, as a general statement I’d generally agree, but ‘part of the problem or the solution’ is a bit absolute (cut and dried) and perhaps authoritarian (?) for my taste. — 0 thru 9

Only if you take such a statement as offering a binary choice, and ignore all of the intended range of possibilities, that realpolitik tends to reveal.

Who decides? What are the criteria?
(Ah, the pesky details… sorry. ) — 0 thru 9

No apology required. Most people will have similar thoughts. For me, the answer is 'we the people,' decide and/or those we democratically elect to represent us, and submit themselves to all checks and balances, that 'we the people' deem necessary, based on the historical databases of examples we have built up, since 'civilisation' began as a human goal. The criteria is whatever 'we the people,' decide it is, but that 'we,'must be a well informed majority of all stakeholders, and not a poorly educated, poorly informed, mostly duped mass of people, who can't even take their basic means of survival for granted.

But why focus on one issue? This one above all? Or focus on one issue at a time? Ok… — 0 thru 9

I think we are talking past each other on this point. Yes, I agree, focus on one issue at a time and/or multitask where and when you are able to.

To assume an overall ‘tech neutrality’, or technology’s benign character that is ’evolving naturally of its own accord’, is no longer wise or really even an option. — 0 thru 9

I don't think such an approach was ever, or is ever, wise, and I certainly don't advocate for it.

I am concerned about a passive, non-skeptical ‘religious’ attitude towards Tech that asks for faith, total belief, and patience. — 0 thru 9

Me too, but I also don't advocate for a luddite approach to tech, or initially seeing all tech advances as evil, because of a knee-jerk reaction against probable initial job losses amongst humans, or the idea that AI overlordship is inevitable. Auto systems also have the potential to free humans from certain daily toils, and allow economic parity for all. We just have to stop the nefarious b******* from claiming all its benefits for themselves.

I’m even more concerned about who’s driving the chariot?
Who’s in charge, and where are we going, and why? — 0 thru 9

Good, well done! I think that is called being politically and socially aware.

As I mentioned above, tech can be used to control and contain us, but it also makes it harder for the bigshits to hide and operate without criticism and pushback. — 0 thru 9

I agree.

As I perceive the book existing on the desk, at the same time, I also perceive the book as not existing under the desk.

Generalising, to be able to perceive something somewhere, I must be able to perceive nothing somewhere else. — RussellA

No the difference here, is that the book could exist under the desk via change. I exist, when I die, I no longer exist, but all the sub-atomic quanta that was part of me, persists, but becomes separated.

Even at the point of the complete heat death of the universe, some unknown 'energy form' will persist, as will dimensional extent. But the universe will contain no objects, not even black holes. According to CCC and its 'hawking points,' as identified in this aeon cycle. Those conditions result in no further ticking of time, as no movement occurs and energy can no longer do work. That is the moment suggested as 'size/extent no longer having any meaning,' (the moment of singularity) and a new Big Bang cycle happens. At least that is my probably quite poor understanding of CCC, as posited by Roger Penrose and his team. At no point did a state of 'nothingness' exist.

How about. We are each either part of the problems or part of the solutions.
I think the human race can become a net positive. Each human can help or hinder that goal.
This is a general statement, yes. To give a specific statement, we would need to focus on a single current issue. We have already done so on this thread. I think a techno religion of any form is unwelcome and would be more of a negative that a positive. Do you agree?

Your concerns are widely held, understandable and must never be merely hand waved away.
It is up to those in the know, and those who 'investigate' and monitor and report, to inform us all, of all clear and present dangers.
But it is also your responsibility and my responsibility, to be determined, to be as active as we can be, in playing as significant a role as we can, as part of or/and a support for, that hopefully overwhelming, set of checks and balances that our history makes crystal clear, are so absolutely essential to our species becoming a net positive force, on this planet and in this universe.

Too late! Somebody should have warned us sooner. — Vera Mont

Most didn't know enough about it and the nefarious didn't ever care enough about it.
Many many, including the like of Carl Sagan, did speak out but the majority of the population were not informed enough to take serious enough action in response. Most know a lot more now imo and that is spreading, although I agree the progress is too slow at the moment.

Been there. Done that. Carry the scars. — Vera Mont

I am sure you are a dear and tough auld gal, you can handle as many mental scars as the bams might try to cause you. You are struggling as best you can, for the sake of all of us, yes?
Are you not still a secular democratic socialist?

Regarding the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", as we know that "something" and "nothing" exist in language, but cannot know whether something and nothing exist outside of language, our reply can only be in terms of language and not in terms of what may or may not exist outside language. — RussellA

Let's ignore language or communicating with others. Do you think it's possible for an existent to perceive 'nothing?' internally? If god was an existent that was eternal self-aware mind with intent, then how would it be able to perceive nothing or experience 'nothing' or personal non-existence?
I don't think it could, I think such IS impossible and thus such a god cannot be omniscient or omnipotent.
Hard solipsism is unfalsifiable, but so is the existence of nothing. For me, the concept of 'nothing' suggests that the process of 'universe' coming into existence, and then ending via something like heat death via entropy, suggests an eternal cycle, like suggested by Penrose's CCC. If I try to go anywhere else, my brain again just displays a big 'brain off' switch.

:up: Thanks for your clarifications.

Attach any date, in recorded or unrecorded history so far, and this would be true. — Vera Mont

I agree.

Today, the entire population of the planet, human and every other species, is in imminent danger of being incinerated by nuclear devices.
Today, every human and other animal on the planet is in danger of being killed or injured or displaced by climate events.
Today, every fish and bird and animal on the planet is at risk of poisoning or illness via human waste.
Today, there is no safe place or shelter in the entire world.

This would only have been true of any date since Oct. 16, 1962 CE and is more true every day since. — Vera Mont

I also agree, but this means humans have added to the many existential threats that have always been at a global scale, for all life on planet Earth. The dinos fate is good evidence of that, as are the 99% of all once existent species, that have gone extinct through no action of human beings at all, in the lifetime of this planet. Natural disaster has always been an existential threat to all life on planet Earth. I totally agree with you that we should not add to those threats or exacerbate them (as in the very real threat of climate change) due to our bad stewardship of the Earth or through our totally skewed interrelationships, due to pernicious invention/bad use of such as money and religion.
I also remind you again, that it is only our progress, via science and tech, that may reduce all current and future threats from natural disaster. If we make ourselves extinct via our own stupidity, then as I said, good riddance to bad rubbish. I don't think we are stupid enough to do that, and I think we will stop those who are. You think the stupid/selfish/f***wits amongst us, will prevail and if we survive, it will be in some very much reduced form, that is unable to affect our terrestrial and extraterrestrial environments, to the extent we can now, and to a much greater extent in the future. I think you are wrong about that. I agree that we are affecting our ecology and environment, in far too many very negative ways at the moment, but as I have previously stated, we will keep getting 'stuff' wrong, until we get 'stuff' right, far more often that we do now. It would be more useful imo, if you spoke/typed in ways that encouraged others to be in favour and actively support that pursuit, than insist that we will never be able to become a united planet with a combined terrestrial and extraterrestrial human/orgamecha population, in the hundreds of billions.

I think the big difference is that a technophile does not consider technology to be supernatural.

They also don't 'worship' such, in the ways demonstrated by religions, nor do they suggest that tech demonstrates or will ever demonstrate any of the 4 omnis.

A technophile also does not dictate moral edicts, regarding how humans must live, based on the claimed revealed word of tech (as compared to god), dictated to ancient or current prophets of tech (as compared to god) and then further warn all humans that they will burn in hell for eternity, if they don't comply with such tech (as opposed to god) dictated moral law.

So there is still time to put the fire out, or at least keep fighting it, if we all cooperate more on the main problem areas.

With what is happening in Israel and Ukraine it is pretty hard to have faith in the good. I am struggling. — Athena

The Israel/Gaza and Russia/Ukraine horrors would challenge any human notion that we, (as in the human race,) are capable of 'making things permanently better for all concerned.'
Will these current horrors escalate into WW III and a full nuclear exchange?
As I have posted before, I think if that truly did happen, then good riddance to us bad rubbish.
The planet will recover from our stupid world war III. What will be sad imo, is that the ability for life on this planet, to demonstrate truly good purpose and meaning, will be set-back, perhaps for another few million years.
But, until the nukes land and detonate, that takes out me and the rest of the Scots, I will keep arguing that there is a better way! and I will keep my hopes high, based on a previous point I posted:

The vast majority of the human cities currently existing on this planet, were not bombed today!
The vast majority of humans currently alive today were not raped, shot or slaughtered today!
Most of the human nations/tribes of the world are not currently at war today!

I remain optimistic that we will see progress. — Existential Hope

:clap: :up:

Similar with the Adam Smith reference. It seems it's saying that inequality and competition are natural, the natural order of things and that one must not indulge in compassion for others or otherwise concern oneself with social justice (or with big metaphysical problems), but instead look after one's own interests and cater to one's desires. — baker

What is your main source of evidence for the words I have underlined?
Evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest?
If it is, then was cooperation and altruism, not also essential aspects of that experience as well?

No no no no no! No more woo woo! I personally, assign a high credence level, to the idea that AGI will 'eventually,' prove to be more supportive and symbiotic to the flourishing, enhancement and growth of the human species, than possibly any other scientific breakthrough we have hitherto made. We will need at least AGI, to become a viable extraterrestrial species, but we don't need to further infect our species with new variants of theistic twaddle.

Energy, as a concept, is either derived independently or dependently on experience, energy could very well precede all experiences as I am sure a dualist would think being the case, without that having any bearing on whether the concept of energy were derived a priori. — Julian August

No, 'derived independently' or 'dependently' are not the only possibilities. Energy as an existent rather than as a concept, has not proven itself to be completely 'derivable' at all, so far, by our scientific efforts. I use the term 'derive' in line with a definition such as:
"derived; deriving. transitive verb. : to take, receive, or obtain, especially from a specified source. specifically : to obtain (a chemical substance) actually or theoretically from a parent substance."

Energy may be, as suggested in some such theory as Roger Penrose's CCC, basically, eternally cyclical, in state and form.

So your follow-up question is a separate issue, you are here referring to the problem of whether time and therewith a rate of time can exist independently of experience, this seems to be the case, it even seems necessary. — Julian August

No, any notion of derivation or differentiation or energy changing state, cannot be independent of time, as such takes time to happen. It does not matter whether or not, you conceive time as each human beings independent, (observational reference frame) relative experience of time, or you insist that time has a 'universal' reference frame, that applies to every point in the universe, regardless of whether or not lifeforms such as humans exist to 'think about' such. For me, this is only plausible if an 'outside' of the universe exists.

Different people and fields uses the same word for different concepts, this sometimes makes these conversations harder than they need to be, yet at the same time these different perspectives will claim that they have the "right" interpretation of what the concept were supposed to mean initially, as has happened with the term "energy" in physics and not without good reasons. — Julian August

I agree that nomenclature and definition of terminology is very problematic.
Obtaining clarity of understanding of the terminology being used by all participants in any debate is rarely achieved.

I am a dualist, and I believe we are describing that other thing when in physics we are justifying our conclusions for why something X (unobserved) were a sufficient reason for something Y (either observed or unobserved), while our efforts will ultimately be in vain for our descriptions and schematics will never even be anything like that other thing. — Julian August

Thanks for declaring your position as a dualist. It is not a position I currently assign any credence to, but that is no measure of whether dualism is true or not.

Yet the concept of energy derives from experience itself — Julian August

How do you know this? Which came first, energy or the experience of energy?

since experience is a part of consciousness and energy (as concept) is abstracted from experience so must it indeed apply to consciousness. — Julian August

It is very likely that energy is employed by consciousness as consciousness does work or is a result of brain process or the brain doing work. I agree with your conclusion that mind/body duality is very unlikely indeed (at least I think that is your conclusion) but I don't agree with the argument you use to get there. Perhaps I am not fully understanding the logic of your argument.
Is it basically that energy has different forms/states, but it all may well come from a single underlying form or state. Human consciousness will employ energy, but the 'changed state' or 'form' of that energy within human consciousness, does not exist independently, outwith the brain.
I don't think your 'energy/experience' connection adds anything new or substantial to support the claims against dualism.

Adam Smith was seriously full of shit. An Economist, was he? — Vera Mont

He was greatly admired by Maggie Thatcher and still is, by the UK tory party!
That's enough to utterly sink him for me forever.

Best watched alone, no distractions that way.

but what is one way one might engage in collective and cooperative effort at a global scale? — NOS4A2

The science community do it all the time.

Yep, 'Imagineering' or 'imagineer,' was originally a Walt Disney job description.

I applaud your skepticism and encourage you not to take your cynicism too far, so that your notion of personal 'realism' becomes too dark and nihilistic.

:up:

And pigs might fly. :grin: — Agree-to-Disagree

I cannot comment on what you see or personally imagineer.

Some people believe that all civilizations destroy themselves before they achieve interstellar travel. This might explain why we have never detected extraterrestrial life. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes some people do believe such, some people is not who we were discussing, we were discussing the majority.

Have you watched/read much on the Peloponnesian wars, between Athens and Sparta?
I have watched this one, it's another 3h offering but I think it shows how Nazi like, early Spartan and Athenian societies were, along with most of the other combatants in the area at the time. This one talks a lot about Athenian democracy and democrats. I really enjoyed it and it gave me a lot more insight, regarding Athens rise to power.

This is a little off topic but are you aware of Allen Turing being the father of AI? — Athena

Very much so, he very much deserves the accolade imo. Small point btw, it's Alan not Allen.

For sure the fact that we have survived without claws and fangs proves that we evolved to help each other stay alive. We share much in common with other social animals. Genghis Khan had no problem with killing people until a Chinese man who came from an agricultural society taught Khan to harvest the towns and cities, instead of destroying them. Khan and the Mongols did not come from an agricultural society but a society dependent on hunt in an environment that led them to believe they lived despite the sky god who was far more likely to kill people than to help them survive. So by the Mongol story of life, it was people in the cities who were evil, as the cities led some having great wealth and left many extremely poor. Khan told his people to never settle and become like the city people. Lying and stealing were punishable by death because among the Mongols there was no need to lie and steal because everyone's needs were met. If a stranger knocked on your door without question he was given food and shelter because not doing so could lead to the person's death and someday you might be the one needing food and shelter. — Athena

Genghis is another interesting case in point, akin to other historical butchers of humanity, from Alexander to Attila, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler/Stalin. It's a very long list.

Yourself @Vera Mont, @180 Proof, @Existential Hope, @0 thru 9 might find this a very interesting doc about early human civilisations. Its almost 3h long, but worth the time investment. It highlights various thoughts from scientists in the field that 'talk to' some of the exchanges we have had on this thread regarding human developed culture.



I have now watched this twice. There is so much content, I wanted to investigate a little further. I was intrigued by 'Haydens hypothesis,' for example. From my google searching, I think this is a reference to the work of Brian Hayden, a Professor Emeritus in the Archaeology Department at Simon Fraser University.

So far, I have found this interesting:
It is widely assumed that among hunter-gatherers, men work to provision their families. However, men may have more to gain by giving food to a wide range of companions who treat them favorably in return. If so, and if some resources better serve this end, men's foraging behavior should vary accordingly. Aspects of this hypothesis are tested on observations of food acquisition and sharing among Ache foragers of Eastern Paraguay. Previous analysis showed that different Ache food types were differently shared. Resources shared most widely were game animals. Further analysis and additional data presented here suggest a causal association between the wide sharing of game and the fact that men hunt and women do not. Data show that men preferentially target resources in both hunting and gathering which are more widely shared, resources more likely to be consumed outside their own nuclear families.
These results have implications for
1) the identification of male reproductive trade-offs in human societies,
2) the view that families are units of common interest integrated by the sexual division of labor,
3) current reconstructions of the evolution of foraging and food sharing among early hominids, and
4) assessments of the role of risk and reciprocity in hunter-gatherer foraging strategies.

There is a great deal more from the above video that I would like to know more about.
If you don't have a spare 2h 50 mins to spare then, fair enough.