And read the following statement by Lawrence Keeley, War Before Civilization, the Myth of the Peaceful Savage, Oxford University Press, 1997, p174, regarding such:
The facts recovered by ethnographers and archaeologists indicate unequivocally that primitive and prehistoric warfare was just as terrible and effective as the historic and civilized version. War is hell whether it is fought with wooden spears or napalm. Peaceful pre-state societies were very rare; warfare between them was very frequent, and most adult men in such groups saw combat repeatedly in a lifetime. As we have seen (in the American Colonies), the very deadly ambushes, raids and surprise attacks on settlements (by native American Indians) were the forms of combat preferred by tribal warriors to the less deadly, but much more complicated battles so important in civilized warfare. In fact, primitive warfare was much more deadly than that conducted between civilized states because of the greater frequency of combat and the more merciless way it was conducted.
As stated above, peaceful pre-state societies were very rare; warfare between them was very frequent, and most adult men in such groups saw combat repeatedly in a lifetime, which may be reflected now by the popularity of sports and sports fan(atic)s. With this popularity and fanaticism in sports as reflected today in the warrior ethos and the tribe - all for one, one for all - it seems quite probable that war played a significant part in the extinction of other hominid species and the rise and dominance of Homo sapiens. How else could one species conquer the world? Could a sports game now between two arch rivals reflect the adrenalin of 2 different Paleolithic tribes of different species, lets say Homo floresiensis and Homo sapiens, fighting in battle to the death for survival? Homo sapiens must have outfought, outhunted, and outbred all other hominid species. This genetically evolved and selected Warrior Ethos, perhaps prominent at the exit of Homo sapiens from Africa 70,000 years ago, lead to the dominance of this human species and the extinction of others.
Are the malignant social cancers referred to earlier a result of this genetic warrior ethos as possibly described by the historians above? Is this warrior ethos the means by which Homo sapiens left Africa 70,000 years ago and conquered the world to the extinction of other hominid species? Does this warrior ethos explain as Ferrill said: “There is no longer any question that prehistoric man behaved aggressively. This fact is attested to by the discovery of prehistoric fortifications, weapons, cave paintings, and skeletal remains. Whether this aggressive behavior was biologically instinctive or culturally induced remains a matter of controversy, but by the end of prehistoric times man was a fighter, capable of waging organized warfare of the sort seen in later historical societies. The earliest civilizations along the Nile and in the Mesopotamian valley around 3000 BC witnessed a burst of warfare, intensified by the increased power of the new states to marshal troops and pay the high costs of fighting. But organized warfare was not new; it had been practiced for millennia in prehistoric times. When man first learned how to write, he already had wars to write about.”
And as Keeley said: “Peaceful pre-state societies were very rare; warfare between them was very frequent, and most adult men in such groups saw combat repeatedly in a lifetime.” After the extinction of all other hominid species, did Homo sapiens continue with this warrior ethos, but not on other hominid species, they were all gone, but on other Homo sapiens tribes in their vicinity? At the advent of civilization, did this genetically predisposed ethos express itself? Again Ferrell, regarding the Fertile Crescent Tribes: “The earliest civilizations along the Nile and in the Mesopotamian valley witnessed a burst of warfare, intensified by the increased power of the new states to marshal troops and pay the high costs of fighting.” Are such tribes still present today and reflected in the tobacco tribe, the opioid pharmaceutical tribe and the fossil fuel tribe? It appears after having conquered all other hominid species, some Homo sapiens tribes and this genetic warrior ethos are now killing their own while making billions of dollars with their deceit. This is the warrior ethos gone wry. Perhaps a functional moral democracy based on truth could address this issue.
So it appears that we may have an evolutionarily selected genetic tribal mentality. Does this predisposed tribal mentality transfer itself to politics? Is it possible that the two political parties represent two tribes battling with each other for survival? Is this why you should never talk about politics, which often leads to highly heated sometimes fanatical arguments? Which brings in the argumentative theory and warrior ethos mentioned earlier? The answers may very well be yes.
Argumentative theory, aided by the earlier evolved cognitive and confirmation biases previously mentioned, may have been the precursors to this tribal mentality and warrior ethos, and often times becomes the dominant expression in a political discussion as reflected in our currently very polarized society. Argumentative theory of reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Argumentative theory was designed by evolution to help win arguments. That's why it’s called The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as Mercier and Sperber stated in their article proposing Argumentative Theory, “The evidence reviewed here shows not only that this reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Argumentative reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions”, regardless of fact and truth. This explains the confirmation bias. Facts and truth don’t matter, winning the argument, winning the battle, does. This is reflected today in our legal system. The lawyer for the plaintiff will present information in such a way as to maximize the probability that the jury will decide the defendant guilty. The lawyer for the defendant will present information in such a way as to maximize the probability that the jury will decide the defendant is not guilty, each not necessarily generating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That’s not their job, truth is irrelevant, they’re paid to argue in favor of their client, using confirmation bias and the argumentative theory of reasoning. The word tribe has been used recently in the news to describe our current political layout, saying 40% of the population supporting Trump are devoted Right, and 40% are devoted Left, and each are using cognitive and confirmation bias and argumentative theory to support their views. Apparently only 20% of the population may have a more centrist realistic political perspective, the other 80% are genetically, confirmationally and argumentatively biased to the Left and Right.
Let’s take a long evolutionary view to see why this may be the case. Homo erectus migrated out of Africa 2 million years ago – there was no competition, no other Paleolithic humans or Homo species. They may have used the basic mammalian approach to survival, a cognitive bias - don’t annihilate your competition, just make a territorial power statement. If it works, fine, if not, just move on to where there is no competition. So Homo erectus could have used this approach to migrate and settle all of Eurasia over the next 1.7 million years, also evolving into other human species. Over the last 300,000 years Homo sapiens was evolving still in Africa, and 70,000 years ago that species left Africa with its tribal and warrior ethos to conquer the world. Homo sapiens couldn’t migrate to an area with no competition, Homo erectus and other species had already done that and human species were now settled throughout Eurasia. Homo sapiens had to fight and conquer the already present species – and how did they do that? Their (and now our) genetically predisposed hard-wired warrior ethos. Homo sapiens then outfought, outhunted and outbred other species to become the dominant human species to the extinction of others. Homo erectus and others did not have this warrior ethos and went extinct.
So is it this Homo sapiens warrior ethos and sense of belonging to a tribe that now overcomes our neuroreality? Homo sapiens were able to dominate the world with its warrior ethos, now this warrior ethos and sense of belonging to a tribe overcomes reason and logic. That tribal instinct then creates different tribes within the whole country, the two main political tribes we have now are the Right and the Left, with sub tribes within each: Moderate Right, alt-Right, and moderate Left, illiberal-Left. The alt-Right is now capitalizing on this instinct, as are the fossil fuel and tobacco industries along with the Koch brothers and Big Money. Big Money threatened to stop funding the Republican Party if they didn’t pass the Tax Reform Bill at the end of 2017 that provides a massive tax cut for the super-rich, and blows up the deficit even higher. The illiberal-Left wants universal health care, what about those that have given up salary increases for better health care coverage? Isn't the Left in favor of freedom of choice? The Far Left supports welfare programs for the poor because these may reduce child poverty, as well as reducing crime and social problems. In actuality they've become a taxpayer funded lifestyle passed on through generations. Where’s our neuroreality as a Nation to let this tribal polarization happen?
Which brings science to mind, science is the study and understanding of the real world based on fact and truth. According to human evolution, cognitive bias, confirmation bias, argumentative theory, the warrior ethos and presently reflected in our legal system, as all described earlier, fact and truth are not necessarily the most import aspects of human evolution and human existence. So read the next Chapter on Fantasyland for further discussion of this issue.