Day 3327, some more notes.

I like to believe that humans think the same way now as we did 50000 years ago. With thinking, I mean the strength of it, the speed, what we can accomplish with it. If it is possible to develop a good IQ test, we wouldn’t do much better now than someone living all those years ago, someone who’s figuring out how to crack the right stone to get a knife out of it. We have a much larger well of knowledge right now, which can aid us, making it appear that we are much smarter. On the other hand, there are probably not more than a 100 people who are living in modern houses right now who can make a good flint knife, and only because they studied it and not because they figured it out by themselves. All I want to say is that there were also Einsteins living at the beginning of our civilization; the only difference is that they lacked the instruments and wealth of knowledge collected and written down that they could build their theories on, and most of all, they lacked any means to let us modern people know what they knew. We have this wealth of apparent knowledge, and we all know more on average than someone living a hundred years ago, but that doesn’t mean we are smarter, let alone that we make better decisions.

Humans are the product of many millions of years of evolutionary development, and how and why we think the way we do is still not completely clear. It is clear that on an evolutionary timescale, some form of consciousness just happened a second ago, and from the first caveman to me writing this is measured in milliseconds. Thinking in the sense of explaining ourselves also plays a minor role in our daily business, so to speak. We often react and come up with a reason for why we reacted that way after the fact. The words we use function more as bandages in many cases. An example of a trigger we inherited is that most of us jump from sudden movements in our peripheral vision because millions of evolutionary years have “learned” us that jumping is better than not jumping. After all, the jumpers get bitten less by that nasty snake crawling on their path and live to tell the tale. Many of our behaviours exist because they are part of millions of years of evolution. Before we had words, writing, and laws, we already had thoughts in the form of feelings that drove us and made us jump out of fear for crawling creatures, but for thousands of years, we could not talk about these feelings with each other. We moved together in small groups in similar ways, lived together like we do now, but in silence, doing what felt best. The different human species lived like that for a long time, and it is only a relatively short time ago that we started talking about what was driving us and why we are doing the things we do.

In that sense, we are still infants. Look at our society now, in 2025. We have a democracy like the ancient Greeks already had, and people still vote, and like in ancient times, they still vote for the loudest baboon. It doesn’t matter that the baboon speaks; it matters that he touches the right feelings, feelings we react to more than words, let alone logic. The people who know the right words to “enhance” their feelings understand that the baboon only makes noises, but they also know that a modern human is no match for a baboon. There is no denying that a strong figure in a group is something that has helped the human species along. We all felt safe in our mother’s arms, and that strong feeling lingers on in adulthood. When a fire breaks out, we all probably follow the loudest voice.

Day 3206, have a nice read.

Daily picture, My thoughts

Yesterday, I wrote about the possible origins of war. When I write these pieces, I don’t devise a plan; I just count on myself to write what I think right now. What often happens is that my thoughts about the subject evolve while writing, so it can also be a surprise what my point is when I am done. I am not a scientist in the sense that I do extensive research and fieldwork to gather data and, from there, a theory about a problem, one that I stated at the beginning. I am curious and know that what my opinion is; it is probably nonsense or just vaguely hitting some truths. So today, I searched on the internet for some academic papers about wars and whether we homo-sapiens made it up when we had already evolved into what we are now or if we inherited this trade. I may think more like an old-fashioned philosopher who searches for solutions and problems (either order will work) while sitting in an armchair, but these scientists might be strict and rigorous in their methods, they also disagree with each other, even with all their theories and proofs. It is not a practical science where a big bang clarifies that that recipe didn’t work or a pill cures or not. My first thought after reading and browsing through some of these papers was that they should do some interdisciplinary work. A philosopher and psychologist might have some helpful input. But they might have already done that. This kind of research reminds me of the time when we tried to dive as deep as possible without scuba gear; the deeper you get, the more you get overwhelmed by the thought of suffocating; the deeper you dive into this material, the more you realize that there is too much information to consider, you struggle to get deeper out of pride and want to get air out of cowardice.

The following is a quote from a scientist named Luke Glowacki. I read most of his paper, and though I don’t know where he stands in his field, he seems legitimate and a real scientist.

“Abstract: The role of warfare in human evolution is among the most contentious topics in the evolutionary sciences. The debate is especially heated because many assume that whether our evolutionary ancestors were peaceful or warlike has important implications for modern human nature. One side argues that warfare has a deep evolutionary history, possible dating to the last common ancestor of bonobos, chimpanzees, and humans, while the other views war as a recent innovation, primarily developing with the rise of sedentism and agriculture. I show that although both positions have some support warranting consideration, each sometimes ignores uncertainties about human evolution and simplifies the complex reality of hunter-gatherer worlds. Many characterizations about the evolution of war are partial truths. Bonobos and chimpanzees provide important insights relevant for understanding the origins of war, but using either species as a model for human evolution has important limitations. Hunter-gatherers often had war, but like humans everywhere, our ancestors likely had a range of relationships depending on the context, including cooperative intergroup affiliation. Taken together, the evidence strongly suggests that small-scale warfare is part of our evolutionary history predating agriculture and sedentism, but that cooperation across group boundaries is also part our evolutionary legacy.”

Link to the paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VEDNdEgRpG2IovIIP9if_gR8NBm5Wh3T/view

I also read a paper by Guy Massie. I don’t know him either, but he is also interesting and more scientific than I ever will be.

“Abstract: Much of the academic literature written about the First World War has tended to revolve around questions of diplomacy, foreign policy, and the International System as it existed in Europe in the decades before the war began. To balance this, I analyze the intellectual history of evolutionary thought as it applied to the question of war, peace, and the alleged “pugnacity” of man before and during the war years. Many people viewed the world of international conflict through the lens of socio-biological progress and a “struggle for existence” among humans, nations, and races. By identifying three broad intellectual trends, I argue that these evolutionary narratives of the war question were diverse. Some used the language of human evolution to argue that war was an inevitable engine of progress whereas others stressed different concepts in evolutionary science, such as cooperation, to make pacifist arguments. A third school of thought, the pessimists, argued that man was inherently warlike but that this instinct could be tamed. As the centennial anniversary of the July Crisis and the beginning of the First World War approaches, it is worth investigating the ideational “mood” of the era and the intellectual climate which allowed for such a devastating war to take place.”

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/cria/article/view/116/61

Day 2396, the last man.

Daily picture, Poetry

Human evolution ended
at the empty spot
left there
at the exhibition 
of human evolution

the skull
to radioactive to handle 
the last standing didn't care

Day 2035, meaning.

Anarchy, why not?, Daily picture

Why meaning.

Evolution theory plays a significant role in why we religiously look for meaning. One of the main principles of evolution theory is the survival of the fittest. Fittest, or sometimes also called strongest, is somewhat of a mistake made by Darwin. For predators, it can be advantageous to be fit and strong, and the same goes for the gazelle, but most gazelles will probably survive because they are skittish. You could say that most animals’ best survival strategy is to run away at the first sign of danger; even the Lyon will be wise to run away once it knows of the threat a man with a gun can be. Darwin should have called his theory: survival of the scariest.

Continue reading →