This is not consistent with modern insight into hunter gather societies, they were generally speaking more compassionate than we are today, if you want to measure compassion based off of a groups willingness to spend resources on social care.

Hunter gather societies, especially neanderthals, spent a much larger portion of their limited resources caring for their sick and disabled group member than we do today

It's my understanding that by 'fairly egalitarian' it is meant that democratic practices were common at most times, but there was usually some hierarchy of authority in place too. So that if say another community invades, or there's a sudden decrease in resources, there's somebody for the community to look to for direction.

Sometimes those were elder councils, sometimes one person, like a war chief or shaman... But it would understandably vary on occasion and over time, as early and primitive societies weren't bound by unchangeable rules.

Perhaps for many years the elders of a tribe are very inclusive of others in decision making, but then several die from illness and one psychopath rises to power as a warchief and bullies the few remaining into following their lead, until they and many males die in battle and the community falls back into a more egalitarian state led mostly by the remaining elder women.

There are countless variations of these themes that could play out over time within the millions of primitive communities that have existed over the history of the human race.

But from what I've encountered, while studying these things as a personal curiosity, is that when these societies were at their healthiest, as judged by peace and sustainability of resources, they tended to be pretty damn egalitarian. And most didn't exactly have a name for that, it's just the way things were, they saw and thought of themselves as one unit. You are me, I am you, we are equals--respecting and caring for you is respecting and caring for myself.

Individuals who didn't exhibit this kind of inclination would be understandably seen as broken, dysfunctional, and dangerous--a threat to the community.

You raise an interesting point and some don’t like the idea that animals are rational thinkers like we are because we use it to justify so much of our animalistic behavior. AI though, will force us to ask those questions and in rapid fashion. By demonstrating that we’re not “special” in our ability to think (machines can do it - not now - but soon) we will call into question our own existence and ideologies. Crazy time to be alive.

This analysis seems particularly flawed and wishful. It ignores the likelihood that force, physical or coercive, applied by the few over the many is much more likely to resolve non-compliance than expecting individuals to simply look out for the group.

Statements like "Undemocratic institutions are unsustainable over the long term" ignore both recorded history and studies of more primitive cultures which still exist today. Superficially they may appear to support the inferences you make until you understand rhe actual dynamics of the group.

Their butt…

[deleted]

From what I read in college the argument was that when weapon for fight become easy to manufacture you will have more egalitarian societies because revolt is always around the corner. But if weapons can't be mass produced easily you will have authoritative state. However the the Philosopher in question was American so he might have been biased towards that particular idea

It's almost like, the more centralized states became with the global and regional rise in population, the less equality there was. I wonder what weird, backwards justifications people will make for this.

Yes that would more or less be the assumption. The function that was likely being referred to in the article was rational thinking. And some people with mental disabilities are impaired or sometimes unable to rational think, and likely they would say that it is not a life worth living. For me I feels that is incorrect, however I do know this idea of there theory is to exclude certain people from having a life worth living, so maybe that exclusion is ideal for them. Or maybe they can just set the bar of rational thinking super low and include these mental disabled as fulfilling there function.

The inevitable?

You're going to die, everything you possess will be lost, you're going to be forgotten in the world and will leave no lasting legacy.

So suicide? Cut out the middle man?

Accepting the moment is fine, but what's it for? The often ignored yet inevitable loss of it all would suggest that there is something more to be discovered in the time allotted than the mere temporary contents of it.

Depends who you’d ask. Some say there are other animals that are able to rationally think, typical the example given is crows or chimpanzees. Other people don’t like the idea as that would somewhat dehumanize people with mental disabilities who are unable to rationally think at times.

I'd rather talk in terms of existence of high concentrations of people. If the level of technology is maintained by a small, 30 person isolated community - then i guess it's the level of technology the above poster is talking about. This is bone, leather, stone tools, an occasional copper or gold knife, and so on.

Bronze is much more high-tech, because it requires 3 different ores, from different regions, which means trade needs to happen, which means there should be cities for sending caravans over to

>Anyone simply refusing to cooperate anymore would be a massive harm to the whole group.

Not just those refusing cooperation, but also people not capable of it, like those born with a disability.

source?

yes, indeed, wewere tribepeople

Can you explain why you think that makes any difference?

It's better to not have enemies. The endless killing gets tiresome.

What about a plough? A fulcrum? Let's say both made or, more accurately, fashioned out of wood. Would that be indicative of "machines" or lack thereof? Or, what about a hammer (or something that works as one - like, say, a big stone)? What about arrow heads shaped out of stone/flint or even wood?

No it doesn't. All life is valuable.

You're assuming that the function of that humans life is being limited by their disability.

e.g. can you really appreciate the need for compassion in life if you've never experienced the need for it yourself?

I disagree, enjoying life is the most sensible purpose of life, they are not however, mutually exclusive.

That is the point of animal life. Not human life. The point of human life is self realization

> you’re now saying you have no view on interaction with other lives. So to you murdering somebody would be the same as helping somebody?

No. You are taking it out of context. You omitted the word "how"

The point that was being made is that there is no preconceived idea. Not that nothing matters.

There is only one choice. From that choice alone the illusion of freewill is born out.

Consider a simple thing like visiting an ice cream vendor and picking a flavour of ice cream. Are you actually making a free choice? Or are you in reality merely reacting in accordance to the sum of all your experiences to date? E.g. did you pick vanilla because that was what your mother always gave you? Or rum raisin because you haven't tried it yet, and your father rigorously impressed upon you the importance of trying new things? Or are you standing there lost in a daydream about the philosophical implications of the ability to be able to choose or not because of some comment you read on reddit that one time? Or are you simply unfortunate to be born in world that has mundane trivialities like choices of ice cream when you could have been lost in the endless bliss of pure love of God?

The thing about philosophy is, it doesn't tend to get you anywhere. You can speculate endlessly about anything, often with very good rational arguments that set a coherent and complete system of thought. But if it isn't grounded in reality it remains only speculation and thought. Real knowledge is realized from experience.

All.

The defining characteristic of a human being when compared to animal life is the ability to self reflect. To ponder the nature of the self, and its purpose.

Animals can not do this.

The eagle is for flying and hunting

The human is for self realization