Scientific Brain Model Chapter IX

 CHAPTER IX - Ethos, cultures and ideologies: How did our collective brain learned throughout Evolution how the Universe works.

 * Living beings can be understood as knowledge on how to survive and prevail. The core of this knowledge system is the species' genetic code, where the specie's masterplan is defined. Obviously, a crucial component of this masterplan is the brain. Based on the grand strategy coded in the species' DNA, the individual organism will develop a brain, where the dynamics the species' DNA has optimized throughout Evolution will be followed, in order to optimize the individual organism's interaction with its environment: namely, what basic needs will have to be satisfied, what basic goals should be pursued, how will learning be carried out, etc..

Given that living beings' essential purpose is to survive and prevail, it is reasonable to conceive species as knowledge on how to survive and prevail. The main component of this knowledge is represented by the species' DNA. To the extent that the DNA chain is common to all members of the species, the information contained therein is likewise shared among them. On top of this genetic knowledge, in all but the most primitive animal species, each individual animal living-being's brain will learn and acquire additional knowledge on how to interact with the environment, in order to increase the animal's fitness and chance to prevail.

   

Our newborn-baby example comes in handy once more to illustrate the interplay between these two forms of knowledge. Evidently, when a baby is born, it comes with a whole lot of information wired-up in its brain, on how to perform some basic actions and functions, such as : sucking, swallowing, discharging urine and faeces, vomiting, crying, etc.. We can philosophize as much as we feel like, on the degree to which the baby's brain knows all the care and attention it will receive, whenever it engages in a crying behavior; but there is no question that it will not be long before any such knowledge is enhanced. As discussed earlier, it seems safe to assume that crying is an instinctive reaction the brain triggers, whenever some need arises. THe model I here propose, has the 'tree search'-based planning and reasoning mechanism started up in search of a sequence of actions to satisfy the specific need in question. Since at first there is no recipe on the baby's conscious knowledge base, the only movement suggested is to begin some instinctive screams. As the move will consistently attain the desired goal, the crying behavior will successively be reinforced, until, at some point, the connection is made. From here on out, whenever the baby's brain feels any necessity, the search for any action to fulfill it will obtain two suggestions: the baby's brain's instinct will propose to start screaming, and the conscious knowledge-base recipe will suggest nothing but the same. Evidently, there is no question on what will be the outcome of the competition on what course of action to follow. However, sooner or later the trick will stop working; mom will get increasingly frustrated and expect the baby to learn to state what is exactly what it wants. Mom will certainly be happy to help in this endeavor and teach her sweetheart some basic words: like, for instance, water, food, "pee-pee", etc.. Obviously, there is nothing forcing the baby to learn to ask for things. However, if all what it does is to scream whenever it requires something, its needs will not be met as diligently as those of other babies, who do learn how to speak. In other words, those babies who acquire new skills and knowledge will have a better chance to prevail. In fact, our little angel's brain is already wired up to always insatiably learn new stuff. Little by little, with its mother's help, the baby will come to know, that "water" is the right term to refer to water. Now, whenever our sweetheart wants some water, three suggestions will be raised: in addition to instinctive screaming and the old screaming recipe from the baby's conscious cookbook, a third idea has recently been gaining strength. Since the word "water" has been associated with the concept of a glass of water, now that our angel is thirsty, it will feel the intuition to speak out loud: "water!". This idea has not yet been tried before and is therefore still fairly weak; however, the old tricks have not been working well lately and consequently are not so strong anymore. Since there is always a degree of randomness, there is a fair chance that asking for water will win the competition. Yet - even if that is not the case and the baby resorts once more on crying - after a while, observing that mom does not react as desired, the old tricks will lose momentum. As the neurons selective for a crying behavior run out of gas, the neurons selective for the word "water" become the next best option. Finally, the tide of the battle will turn, the baby will say the word and mom will be the happiest person on the face of the planet. For the first time, our sweetheart learned how to ask for something! If the water is not rewarding enough, mom's joy, hugs and kisses will ensure that the baby's brain makes the connection right away. Next time our sweetheart wants some water, there will not be any doubts on what recipe to follow. In fact, the scheme is really powerful: in the same way it got some water, it can get anything it wants, by just asking for it. Evidently, all what it takes is to know which is the right word to use. Furthermore, now that our angel knows how to speak, sky is the limit on all the knowledge it can acquire. Well..., I got a little bit carried out here. Language does empower us to learn all of humanity's knowledge; but there is obviously still a lot that has so far escaped our grasp.

* Our genetic code sets the dynamics which will naturally lead the individual's brain to converge into the optimal patterns of interaction with its environment. It is certainly not by chance or sheer genius that all babies learn (equally well) how to walk, how to recognize objects, how to speak, etc. Now, while the dynamics are optimized from one generation to the next, by means of Evolution's genetic algorithm; the brain's knowledge on how to interact with the environment is transmitted from one generation to the next by means of language.

Needless to say, all the knowledge and wisdom, conscious as well as unconscious , the individual human being accumulates throughout his or her life does not get transferred back and consolidated into the human DNA. Rather, whenever a new baby is born, it has to start from scratch all over again. This may seem a waste, all those efforts dedicated during a persons lifetime, in order to learn how to speak, how to cook, how to ride a bicycle, how to perform mathematical operations... end up in nothing after that person's death. It goes without saying, however, this is the wrong way to look at the question. Since it is necessary to relearn everything once again everytime a new individual is born , the species is better able to adapt to changes in the outside world. After all, the information contained in the species' DNA and the information learned by the individual's brain represent two different bodies of knowledge. Namely, the DNA is concerned with how the individual organisms function and operate, whereas the brain's aim is to learn how the world works. Indeed, the DNA - in addition to the specification of all internal processes and functions - defines how the individual organism will acquire information from its environment, how said information is processed, and the means by which the individual acts upon the environment. THe optimization of the individual organisms actual interactions with the world outside is, however, not the genetic code's purview, but each of the organism's brain's. Rather, Our genetic code sets the dynamics which will naturally lead the individual organisms to converge into the optimal patterns of interaction. It is certainly not by chance or sheer genius that all babies advance from crying, as their sole recourse to get their needs attended, to learning how to speak (so long mom is there to assist, that is). After all, our world is in continuous and permanent evolution and whatever is optimal today may be unfit tomorrow. Therefore, there is not that much benefit in preserving the old recipes; but there are good reasons to have the newborn organism relearn everything over again. Besides, it is definitely not true that an individual's knowledge is lost after he or she dies. Clearly, we, as many other animals, evolved languages so that we could transmit any knowledge worth keeping. While there have always been cases where some important knowledge was lost, there is no doubt that throughout time, in general terms, humanity's knowledge has been growing steadily. Definitely, not only have we not had the need to reinvent the wheel, but we have developed incredibly sophisticated structures and institutions. It is certainly understandable why creationists have come to conclude, that our world's miraculous perfection and beauty cannot have originated from pure chance; but must have been the design of a supremely intelligent Creator.

* Incredibly sophisticated - even miraculously perfect and beautiful - patterns can be observed everywhere in Nature. For instance, humans and parasitic pathogens learn optimal complex strategies (such as the optimal patterns of exploitation and leeching off, respectively, sedentary communities and hosts) by means of the same kind of Evolution's genetic algorithm, rather than thanks to some light bulbs' genius aha moments.  

In the same fashion, it is certainly understandable why humans have always been convinced that the mesmerizing advancement of humanity's knowledge, as well as our spectacular scientific, technological and institutional development could have only been the product of pure human genius (whatever the exact definition of this may be.). However, incredibly sophisticated - even miraculously perfect and beautiful - patterns can be observed everywhere in Nature. We may think the invention of the computer required a prodigious genius, but the most primitive brain would blow out of the water the most powerful computer in all but the dullest run-of-the-mill tasks. We may find it totally justified that the upper-class-controlled Media clergy does ceaselessly, day in, day out, morning, noon and night blow its own trumpets, preach and sing the praises of the word of the evil Lord of Democracy, but if only the fake-Democracy monster would care half as much for the interests and wellbeing of the average citizenship, as the neurons in the animal brain look after the advancement and good standing of the entire organism. 

In his book "Against the Grain", James C. Scott draws a truly fascinating analogy between the patterns of exploitation and leeching off exhibited by ancient raiding "barbarian" tribes and parasitic pathogens. As Scott points out, carried to its logical conclusion, raiding is in itself self-liquidating. Driven by their own natural lust and endless appetite, raiders are naturally inclined to take as much as they can from the sedentary community they attack. However, by demolishing the means of subsistance of their preys, raiders obviously kill all the "game" that keeps them fed. Raiders would so, over and over again, drive themselves into extinction; until eventually they will somehow adapt their strategy and adopt a less aggressive approach, one that would allow the goose that lays the golden egg some breathing room. Fascinatingly enough, this is the same strategy followed by parasitic pathogens that make a steady living from the host rather than killing it off. While it is still possible to argue - as contrived and labored as it feels -, that less aggressive raiding schemes were the result of some kind of reasoning, conscious thought, deliberate choice or something along those lines; certainly no reasonable mind would give any credit to any parasitic-pathogen intelligent agent. In fact, regardless of what one's stance on the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection may be, it does not require a whole lot of thinking to imagine how these conducts may have emerged; the answer is transparent to anyone who wants to see it: THe parasitic organism interacts with its hosts according to the rules coded in its DNA. Different mutations will lead to various degrees of virulence. Those which suck their victims blood as if there were no tomorrow, will obviously, dig their own grave and disappear; so that all what will be left for us to find will be those more measured strands, which exhibit a longer-term lookout or, perhaps, more regard for their hosts wellbeing, and spare them from an immediate death.  

* It is not at all straightforward for a self-minded organism to realize that a mutually-beneficial relationship (such as, for example, domestication) is the optimal long-term strategy of interaction with the other living beings in the environment.

Fact of the matter is in Nature we find again and again this kind of pattern of delicate interdependence among multiple species and DNAs. In its broadest sense, this principle constitutes the basis for domestication. Indeed, it is reasonable to see domestication as a sophisticated form of symbiosis. Agrarian civilizations have always attributed the invention of farming to their superior intellect. It is certainly difficult not to understand farming as one of humankind's most remarkable creations, if only because it constitutes a key reason for the species success, as it allows for much greater populations than other subsistance modes. However, today there is little doubt that - not unlike most other major human inventions - the domestication of plants and animals evolved over thousands of years in fits and starts. Now, it is certainly possible to think of all the series of innovations that took place along the process, as prodigious aha moments; but, if we consider the data free of any ideological preconceptions, cold and objective reason would tell us that, in all likelihood, there was not really any magic involved in any of these little steps forward. If we just consider our own experience, whenever we face a problem, barely ever will we feel confident enough to be able to reason some solution out; but will instead just take our best guess. For instance, if we cook some food and want to try something new, very rarely will we have any reasonable expectation of what the outcome will look like, let alone how it will taste. In fact, some authors, perhaps somewhat teasingly or jockingly, have dared to offer a new, pretty provocative and witty view of the concept of domestication. Could it be that, after all, humans are not really the agents, but, actually, the objects being domesticated? According to this line of thinking, humans put so much love and effort in the care of their potato crops, that one could only reasonably conclude we got the shorter end of the stick. Humanists, if only by principle, will often be inclined to dismiss this idea as a mere silly and frivolous philosophical argument. How could anybody seriously suggest that some brainless potato would ever be able to manipulate, let alone dominate, the most intelligent species on Earth? Moreover, when all is said and done, who eats whom? Ironically enough, however, barbarian raiders (for that sake, even parasitic pathogens) could use this very same argument to boast their intellectual superiority over those most sublimely intelligent sedentary (civilization) people. Furthermore, it would not be difficult to think of many other cases where humans, not only are not on top, but do not even end up devouring the other party in the relationship. If we consider, for instance, cats (as well as many other pets) it is rather unseen the case where the cat is not running the show. Undoubtedly, there is nothing as powerful as love to have somebody wrapped around one's little finger. Indeed, much is very grotesquely and  repugnantly disingenuously argued these days by our fake-feminist intellectual elite on men's domineering and abusive attitudes and conducts against women. Yet, when all is said and done, who kneels before whom? In fact, it would even be possible to extend the argument to certain plants, such as those producing mind-altering substances: brainless as they are, they are most definitely literally in control of our minds.

* A self-minded organism - following, one step at a time, a learning process based on local information, will never find this kind of win-win happy-medium compromise, but will eventually get stuck in a local minimum. Instead, a global-search optimization process (such as Evolution's genetic algorithm) is necessary: a population of individuals try all sorts of possible things. With time, those strategies yielding greater success becom more popular, whereas less successful ones will go out of fashion, if not die off altogether. Eventually, if sufficient time is allowed, all but a few outliers will follow optimal strategies.   

 

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to the paramount quest of prevailing, there is really no need of a brain (let alone some sort of magically intelligent agent sitting on top of it), in order to devise an optimal strategy. As previously discussed, the whole point is to make it through Nature's 'survival of the fittest' test. Thus, if prevailing is the mother of all quests, the strategy for survival is the mother of all strategies. Now, if the goal is to come out on top, it certainly would help to have other organisms serve our needs. However, as any parasitic pathogen could tell you, better go easy about it, because the sun will indeed rise tomorrow, and you may need them then once more. Indeed, it is critical to find a happy medium between what you get and what you give. Unfortunately, in this truly chaotic world of ours, where the flap of a butterfly's wing in one corner of the globe can cause weeks later a tornado anywhere else, it is just not realistic to think one may be able to reason out, where the freaking happy medium will be. Or, perhaps, you believe you could track every single butterfly wing's flap all over the world? Clearly, all what can realistically be done is to take as many educated guesses as possible. 

Interestingly, that is exactly what Nature's 'survival of the fittest' rule does. Indeed, genetic algorithms have a population of units exploring in parallel a certain domain in search of a global optimum (in this case, a globally-optimal survival strategy). Although there will always be commonalities (especially the more similar the DNAs are), each individual represents a specific hypothesis and will therefore follow its own specific approach. Obviously some organisms will be more successful than others. Those most successful folks will leave a larger number of successors ready to continue the search from where their progenitors left it, albeit each of them will add their very own twist to the approach they inherited. Hence, the fitter and more promising a strategy proves to be, the more popular it will get, and the more the search will be intensified in its vecinity.

The idea just could not be more brilliant: not only can genetic algorithms be applied to any problem, do not require any other information than each of the hypotheses' fitness, and are especially well suited for extremely complex problems; but, if given sufficient time, they are guaranteed to converge into the freakingly elusive global optimum. Now, if your concern is the time it requires; just relax, Evolution has all the time in the world. Long story short, if genetic algorithms is the strategy Nature follows, we should have little doubt it is the optimal approach to find the optimal solution to this sort of extremely complex problems

It should then be easy to see how barbarian tribes evolved optimal raiding strategies. Once more, those bands which blindly pursued their lust without restrain, digged their own grave. In all likelihood, man tripped over this very same stone endless times,over and over again, until one day something changed: perhaps something went wrong and the raiding party had to retreat, before they could take everything and doom their prey; perhaps someone noticed that they had already killed several golden-eggs gooses, and they were slowly running out of them; perhaps a chief came to feel unbearably appalled by all that horrific, vicious savagery, bloodbath and cruelty; perhaps the raiding expedition was just ill-conceived and ultimately not entirely successful; perhaps...

      

Of course, it is always still possible to argue, that ultimately there was always an intelligent agent behind the steering wheel of all these choices. Not unlike the existence of some Supreme Creator, as stated earlier, it is impossible to prove there is not any such intelligent agent responsible for our insightful and not so insightful choices. Just because no one has yet found the freaking intelligent-agent thing and spelled out how it works, it means that it does not exist. I could, for instance, point out that no intelligent-agent theory can explain how parasitic pathogens found a happy medium between aggressive and beatifically accommodating strategies; but the counter-argument would be straightforward: parasitic pathogens evidently do not have an intelligent agent; but human beings obviously do. 

* Contrary to the belief of magical-thinking apostles, scientific evolutionary theories are not necessarily deterministic, deny free will or exclude the possible existence of a divine creator. Rather, all systems are free to make any kind of choices; it is only that those who pursue bad strategies are likely to die off sooner or later.

Evolutionary theories are easily, mistakenly identified with determinism, and are so often rejected outright by many scholars on ideological grounds. The existence of free will is certainly a cardinal principle of any religion; thus, any deterministic theory - to the extent that it is incompatible with the concept of free will - is simply strictly unacceptable to a religious person. However, evolutionary theories do not necessarily negate the existance of free will. Everybody is certainly free to take whatever choices he or she wishes. All what evolutionary theories say is that those who make bad choices are very likely to disappear sooner or later.  

This is so much so, that Evolution is not even in contradiction with the existence of a Supreme Creator. Namely, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God created Nature and designed the rules that govern it. The dynamics running Evolution are certainly simple; but they are nevertheless most absolutely brillian, definitely a superb act of supreme genius. Indeed, as simple as we may now say there are, it took us thousands of years to figure them out. THe proponents of the Intelligent Design Theory certainly have a point, when they contend this world is just too perfect, that could not have originated by pure chance. Who could have ever imagined such simple dynamics would lead to such miraculously beautiful patterns?

Viewed in this light, neither Evolution nor the model that I here propose necessarily negate the existence of the soul. Indeed, it is possible to conceive the sould as the agglomeration of our feelings of love, hate, joy, anger, loneliness, fear, excitement, etc.. These feelings are the driving forces tilting the scales of our decisions. THe fundamental point of the model is that our actions are not choices made by any intelligent agent; but result from the competition held among a number of different alternatives. Whichever alternative wins the competition becomes the system's new plan of action. Obviously, depending on our feelings and concerns at a given time, an action will be more or less fit. In other words, the purpose of this scientific model is to explain how intelligent behavior emerges. Humans have until now answered this question, assuming some intelligent agent responsible for our choices must exist inside our brains. However, after having studied the brain, no evidence has ever been found of any such agent. Moreover, importantly enough, there is no need to make this kind of assumption, in order to come up with an answer to how does intelligent behavior emerge; rather, it is possible to explain it scientifically. In fact, the observation of analogous miraculously beautiful patterns in the simplest of micro-organisms, speaks to the fact that no intelligent agent is required to produce intelligent behavior.

Yes, in all fairness, one has to admit, there are certainly significant differences between human beings and parasitic pathogens: namely, humans have a brain and parasitic pathogens do not. Hence humans are capable of a whole lot of intellectual functions, which are strictly unattainable to pathogens. Thus, it is not without reason that anyone could argue that humans were blessed with an intelligent agent, whereas pathogens were not. Just because no one has yet found the freaking intelligent agent and spelled out how it works, it means that it does not exist.

We then do not have to rack our braines to imagine how the barbarians' intelligent agent may have intervened in the acquisition of sustainable raiding strategies. It goes without saying, when it comes to intelligent agents, it all always boils down to an aha moment. Evidently, at some point someone must have paused for a minute and begun thinking, what was exactly what they were doing. It then definitely stood to reason that, by demolishing the means of subsistance of their preys, they were basically pooping right where they were eating. Once this realization had been made, the tricky part must have been how to spread the new knowledge across the field. Undoubtedly, language must have played a crucial role. Since barbarians very rarely developed a writing system, we cannot trust the new magical raiding recipe was ever written down and desseminated for everybody to learn. However, we cannot have any doubt that those at the top were sure to soon create oral traditions and legends extending through generations to come. Stories would soon start being pass down from parents and grandparents to children, recreating the memorable day our mythical hero's intelligent agent had the legendary aha moment. Admittedly, not everybody would have been blessed with a vibrant intelligent agent and some folks would have struggled a bit digesting the concept's logic; however, the system will nevertheless work so long these unwashed masses follow the chosen ones' directions.

    

Now, considering all the intellectual resources humans have at their disposal, what strikes as truly miraculous is how on Earth may parasitic pathogens be able to achieve analogous results. Indeed, how could it be at all possible to exhibit the kind of lookout into the future required to devise long term plans and strategies, without any long-term memory, language, planning and reasoning neural mechanism or, if you so prefer, any intelligent agent? All the evidence indicates the answer lies in the DNA and genetic algorithms. The DNA codes the dynamics the organism is going to follow, and genetic algorithms tinker and fine-tune said dynamics, so that they lead to the optimum long-term strategy. Regardless of the degree of complexity an optimum long-term strategy may involve, Evolution's 'survival of the fittest- rule will be sure to slowly converge into it. As a matter of fact, we should understand Evolution's development of the central nervous system as nothing but the ultimate expression of this very principle. Indeed, the brain evidently allows the design of far richer dynamics. One excellent example of this is Love:

* Love, let us work together and do what is best in the long run; love, let us work together and live forever happy!

Needless to say, the most straightforward plan to reach one's goals is to just go for it as hard as you can. However, as we have seen, such a direct approach often ends up bringing some negative long-term consequences and taking a more circuitous route turns out to be smarter in the long run. Clearly, if you feel any affection for the goose that lays the golden eggs, you will be less inclined to kill it, for all you would enjoy some delicious goose roast. Whether we like it or not, nothing will ever make us feel happier than the love of the people around us. The drive for, and expression of, love and affection indeed leads to many different patterns of behavior. For instance, a male organism who reaches sexual climax after offering some food, will be inclined to repeat the same generous conduct in the future. On the other hand, a female organism will very much welcome the approach of an organism, whom she had previously received food from. Furthermore, a male who reaches sexual climax after having been lovingly greeted , will soon learn that it is worth to put some effort in corresponding to such warm gestures of affection. As a result of all this, since male and females are naturally inclined to work together in some sort of symbiosis, two-gender species enjoy an evolutionary edge over one-gender species. Moreover, a female will be fitter, if she feels attracted to those strong , well-built males likely to be skilled hunters and, therefore, reliable providers of food. Analogously, a male will have a greater chance to have his genetic code transmitted to the next generation, if he feels attracted to the kind of healthy-looking, well-built female likely to produce him a large offspring.

The array of conducts fostered by the drive for love and affection, however, extends far beyond those associated to sexual relationshipps. Indeed, we learn most of our conducts as a consequence of our eternal quest for our mother's love. Clearly, we learn most of our behaviors during our childhood and there is nothing that a child needs more than its mother's love. In fact, a child's odds to survive and flourish are significantly correlated to the degree to which its mother cares for it, or how else is it going to make it out alive, if mom is not there to provide for all its needs? Anything we do, if mom laughs, kisses us or gives us a big hug, the child will be sure to repeat it; whereas, if it upsets her, the child will think twice before it does it again. We so learn to ask for things politely, to be considerate for other folks' needs and feelings, to share our stuff with the people around us, to cherish the relationships with our buddies, etc.. There is a good case to be made that our eternal mortifying yearning for moral purity originates when during our childhood it got deeply drilled in our minds, that mom would not love us as much, if we are not a good person. A further easy case sustains that jealousy and rivalry against our siblings are due to our lifelong competition to become mom's favorite. If only to please her and get her approval, we will swear to love them to bits, and, eventually, even go to great lengths to support and aid them as much as we can. After all, mom swears they love us too, does she not?; moreover, do they not? Regrettably, as families are these days getting smaller and most children barely have any siblings - if any at all -, there is no motivation to learn the most crucial of all skills, the one that contributes to our happiness the most: how to win the love of the people around us. Rather, mom has been lectured by the most learned among us, that we all expect her to love the kid no matter how naughty its conduct may be, and so the lovely little monster is nowadays who runs the show. Now, let us wait for it to grow up and become self-sufficient, and we will see how much it still cares for its mother. It is one more example speaking to the chaotic complexity of our world: one tiny shift here has a cosmic impact over there. In order to tackle the threat of overpopulation, the educated elite designed a plethora of strategies to reduce the number of children per family, and now the nightmare has become a population of dysfunctionally self-centered individuals. The educated elite learned from the experience in World War II that the Economy would benefit if women got incorporated into the job market; but, now that women do not need their husbands' financial support, families are not staying together anymore and the nightmare has become a population of dysfunctionally self-centered, self-loving, depressed individuals. In fact, there is an excellent case to be made that love and the need of love is what led mom to develop the desire to have children in the first place.

Fact of the matter is love plays a capital role in most - if not all - of our conducts. Our interactions with any animated thing are sculpted by two basic drives: as living beings that strive to prevail, we have to compete against all other living things. However, it is only smart to try to cooperate with anything that does not stand in our way, seeking our same objectives. Not unlike a tiny nation striving to survive in a wild world, it is only smart to look for alliances with other folks. Those nations who cannot make friends will then feel lonely and fear what the future may bring. Love and the need of love is what drives us to seek cooperation with other beings. Why do we feel more affection for our pets than for most other human beings? Not only do they (much unlike humans) love us unconditionally, but they (much unlike humans) will follow our every command. Why do we feel for disabled folks? Evidently, they are no threat nor rivals in our way; thus, it only makes sense to cooperate with them. The same principle could explain why - even in those cases where we did not maintain any attachment or whatsoever - we feel sad, whenever another living thing dies. Even if it comes to a totally different species, so long it is possible to conceive we could have found some collaboration from the thing, we will deeply regret its lost. It is certainly not a coincidence why social animals make up for the majority of the most evolved species. We stick together because we need each other. As much as we quarrel and compete against one another, we also care for and look after one another. Love is what keeps us together; love is what drives us to work together. When all is said and done, it does not matter whether our love is real or just an illusion; so long our actions speak to it, the system works. Definitely, it is a funny coincidence that the word 'social' comes from the Latin 'socii', those allied Italian peoples fighting alongside the Roman Republic's legions; but against whom the Social War had to be waged, because the friends of the Romans demanded the same rights and privileges, than the citizens of Rome themselves already enjoyed.

* Ideologies: Let us group together behind the loving Shepherd who shall lead us to the greenest pastures.

In fact, we do not follow the leader seeking the common good and whose ideas are most logical and reasonable; but the one who we (somewhat foolishly) perceive cares the most for us. If it becomes obvious that we cannot make it on top, it is only smart to support the most powerful person, who appears to seek our same objectives. In other words, we will follow the leader who seems to feel the most for us. Basically, we embrace the ideology that fits our interests best. For instance, as much as it is historically very well established that immigration is beneficial to the nation's prosperity, average citizens are typically opposed to the arrival of any foreign workers ready to perform low and middle class jobs for lesser pays. In contrast, those belonging to the nation's economic elite minority, owning the kind of resources that enable them to profit from cheap labor, will surely have a less xenophobic view than their social lessers. Now, immigrants themselves will obviously not understand their new neighbors' hostility, but as soon as they finally recieve citizenship they will be sure to catch up and get to grips with all the problematics that rise from immigration. Much is made of the myth of rhetoric and certain individuals' prodigious persuasion skills to sway the masses; however, nobody gets convinced of any idea, which goes against his or her interests. For instance, if so many folks in the U.S. today have come to believe that their wealthy nation is being invaded by hordes of foreigners, whose aim is only to make a prosperous living out of crime; it is not because any cunning, devious and unscrupulous populist politician ever persuaded them with any such argument. Or, perhaps, these folks also needed somebody to fool them into forgetting that the U.S. took - in the name of freedom - half of Mexico's original territory by fire and sword?

Human beings have so far only known two basic kinds of political systems: autocracies and fake-democratic oligarchies (as well as anything in between). In order to stay on top against the threat of the other big families in the realm, the autocrat will cater the love and support of the majority of the population. Now, favoritism obviously always comes at the expense of others. But who cares for the others, if one is getting the good end of the stick? On the other hand, how special can I be, if I am only one more among all the dictator's children? How much can you love me, if you do not even listen to anything I have to say? Indeed, fake-democratic oligarchies cater the love and support of all those minorities, who find themselves ignored and oppressed by the dictator.

 

There is an excellent case to be made, that ideologies are nothing but a binding mechanism. Folks seeking the same objective come together to join forces. Obviously, unity makes strenth and, if we work together, we will be far more powerful and better able to achieve our goal. Now, is it anything such as different people sharing the very same objective? A shrewd leader is the one, who is able to find an idea, which attracts the interest of as many and as powerful people as possible: perhaps we share the same eyes, hair or skin color; perhaps we come from the same city; perhaps we pursue equal occupations; perhaps we worship the same Gods; perhaps we speak an identical language; perhaps we are both progressists or conservatives; perhaps we belong to the same nation; or, perhaps, we both simply worship the God of Democracy... Obviously it is great to have many followers; but if they are themselves hopelessly unresourceful, it will not be of much help. On the other hand, it is certainly much better to recruit powerful people to your cause; but good luck convincing any big shot to follow you. Yes, they seek power as you do; but it is power for themselves, not for you. Now, if you can get another human being to believe you truly love or, at least, appreciate her or him,   ; the idea that you both can share power will become far more credible. In fact, enticingly enough, if you are so captivated, chances are you may end up wrapped around her or his little finger. Yes, leaders and followers will swear to profess the most fervent love for one another and, along the process, soon forget the idea that brought them together, let alone the means employed.in the pursuit of supremacy. Then, foolish, it would be of anybody to believe that one's very own interests are not everyone's only real concern. Foolish, it is of the followers to believe that their ideology's leaders are not going to sell them out the very moment the opportunity arises. Foolish, it would be of anyone to believe that the followers were actually unaware of the evil means the ideology's leaders were employing to achieve the group's ends.

* This world is too chaotic, that it is impossible to anticipate where on Earth our butterfly wing's flap is going to cause the next tornado. Rather, we investigate our world by trial and error: those who realize what are the right buttons to push will flourish; whereas those who repeat the same mistakes will die off. Indeed, our conceptual framework and understanding of the world evolves according to the same evolutionary optimization process we observe for species' DNAs.

OK, so it may be a bit of a stretch to suggest that barbarian raiders felt any love for the agrarian communities they preyed upon, but some abhorrence to all the bloodshed would have certainly been a step in the right direction. In other words, love and the need of love is what clouds our first thought to follow the straight line and sets us out to explore taking some other - albeit more circuitous - less troubling routes. It is certainly entirely possible someone's brain's intelligent agent had an aha moment and subsequently went on cautioning everybody else of the self-destructive consequences down the road of thoroughly and ruthlessly destroying their agrarian preys' means of subsistance. However, the theory according to which someone's brain's intelligent agent's bulb went off, envisioned the nation's future and, from them on, began lecturing everybody on what is the optimal long-term strategy to make a living of leeching off sedentary agrarian communities, is definitely a bit more than what any reasonable and reasoning mind could ever take. Indeed, all the evidence indicates that this kind of intricate and sophisticated knowledge always develops erratically and haphazardly over very long periods of time. One step forward here is then followed by a mishap there, until we eventually arrive at something big. Our brains do not host an intelligent agent smart enough to anticipate the long-term implications of the actions we take. Rather, we are generally only able to comprehend and take note of them after the fact. Chiefs, ancient kings and rulers alike did not spend their time pondering what would be the optimal strategies to run their nation's business. Rather, they just went on military campaign to consolidate their wealth and power and, if they ever put any thought in their nation's business, it was to entice their underlings into investing in the upcoming conquest enterprise. Now, let us be honest, what fool would want to reveal that he just stumble upon the greatest discovery since the invention of peanut butter, if he could as well boast about his superior genius and have everybody worship him for it. 

An excellent example of this is the formation of the Roman Republic. If we were to trust the Roman historians writing several centuries after the fact on the birth of their republic; we would have to believe that the Roman Republic came into being fully fledge, as a result of a giant and magnificent aha moment, by the Roman aristocrats who overthrew the last king of Ancient Rome. However, today there is no doubt that the Roman Republic was a slow and lengthy development, that evolved in fits and starts over hundreds of years. In other words, the aristocrats who orchestrated in the late VI century BC the coup against King Lucius Tarquinius had absolutely no clue of what shape their newborn republic would ultimately take 400 years down the road. Neither is there any basis to believe, that each of the little steps forward leading to the final outcome, were all products of prodigious aha moments. If that had been the case, we would expect that our written Roman sources would have eloquently boasted about them, providing full explanations as of what were the reasonings they were grounded upong and what were the objectives they were expecting to accomplish. Instead, they look more like improvised responses to some bursting complication, which was being confronted at the time.          

For goodness sake, how could anybody sensibly argue that all these social arrangements were the result of a conscious process, which slowly made headway across long periods of hundreds of years, one little genius decision at a time; if - for all the knowledge we have today at our disposal - we still stubbornly refuse to learn from the past and foolishly insist in repeating the same mistakes over and over again. It has never been lost on anybody the kind of horrific bloodbath in which the history of the Roman Republic culminated; and yet the founding fathers of our fake-democratic system could not think of anything better, than to replicate the model and put us again through the ride. If that had not been bad enough, now, as much as we can confirm the replay of the whole classic tragedy, we stubbornly refuse to put our thoughts together and get to grips with the kind of horror we are running towards. Rather we go on pathetically bitching about our most reproachable self-serving politicians, as if they would not be playing the precise, strict role the System assigns to them, and there were a chance we would get any different results if we were to replace them by any other group of people. As it turns out, the educated elite's freaking intelligent agent's bulb keeps missing the realization that same system dynamics are bound to converge into the same outcome. Indeed, if - not unlike the Roman Republic - our system plays a fake-democratic regime, where no central figure can ever assamble sufficient time and political capital to be able to keep within bounds the upper class' wealth and sway; we can only expect social mobility to vanish and the nation's elite (entrenched as it is in its privileged status) to slowly degenerate, until we end up surpassed by, and at the mercy of, the competition, if we do not collapse altogether. Admittedly, however, perhaps it is me who is missing the point entirely; perhaps, the argument is that precisely because it rendered the populace completely defenceless to the abuse and exploitation of the upper class, fake-Democracy's founding fathers' choice was an entirely intentional act... Yikes! I guess it is any living being's natural instinct to seek to the very end its very own, particular interests and benefit; unless it feels some appreciation for the host it leeches off.  

There is no way around it, raiding, piracy and other leeching off modes of subsistance, state formation or social arrangements in general - in all but some very specific exceptions - were not the product of conscious decisions, where the agents had pondered the pros and cons and were fully aware of all the long-term implications that will follow. Rather, over many generations an evolutionary optimization process played out, where a huge population of individuals - clustered in loosely characterized 'etchnic' groups - followed a massive search all across the landscape of survival strategies and practices. Indeed, each of these 'ethnic' groups has its own - loosely defined - way of thinking and doing things. The groups naturally compete against one another; but simultaneously - through exchange of knowledge and information - cooperate with one another. At any given time certain groups will thrive more than others. However, the most successful communities will frequently dig their own grave by "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs". Alternatively, success has always cause societies to engender toxic levels of inequality. Since everybody pulls in the same direction, acutely-hierarchical societies will at first be extremely competitive - so that everybody will be totally ecstatic and mesmerized with their brains' intelligent agent's genius -; but in the long run will stagnate and get stuck. Given their spectacular success, those at the top will not see any reason to innovate and try something new (let alone put any effort into it); but will continue using the good, old recipes. Certainly those at the bottom will be more motivated to pull something new out; but given their destitute status, they will not have any say. As the dominant communities get thus stuck in a so-called "local minimum", the time comes for other groups to flourish. Having been sitting in the sidelines these groups probably have learned and incorporated some of the practices of their formerly thriving, but currently decadent, neighbors. , Yet, assuming they have been able to stay mostly loyal to their ancestral customs and traditions, the group must have remained stabled and preserved a healthy level of equality. In a similar way to a genetic algorithm's crossover operator, the new knowledge added to the ancestral wisdom will in all likelihood produce an overall advancement and more potent strategy of survival, so that all the right conditions will coalesce to propel the community into a period of spectacular growth; but the threat will always remain that the community's success will eventually lead to its demise.

* Until the rise of Civilization, our ideas and ways of thinking, doing things and interacting with the environment were shaped by our community's ethos, culture and ancestral traditions. Not unlike how it would play out in an evolutionary optimization process, we inherited the mentality, that naturally led to the modes of subsistance, strategies and ways of interacting with the environment, which had worked since ancestral times. Indeed, we do not go by the ideas and explanations, which our brain's intelligent agent finds more logical or reasonable. Rather - at least until the rise of Civilization - humans followed the ideas, views, conducts and practices their loving ancestors had taught to them. 

As a matter of fact, oral traditions do not convey the kind of logical reasonings a privileged mind's intelligent agent would have generated; but they typically take more the form of cautionary tales, aimed at shaping the way of thinking, doing things and interacting with the environment. It is always good to keep in mind, that if we do whatever comes first to our mind, we will often run into some problem down the road. It may be a bit of a stretch to argue that barbarian raiders felt any love for the agrarian sedentary communities they preyed upon; but Native American oral traditions show that barbarians, indigenous peoples or - perhaps we should just say - illiterate communities have always been taught from their early childhood the appreciation, even adoration of the natural environment they lived from. Indeed, whether our human hubris likes it or not, we do not go by the ideas and explanations, which our brain's intelligent agent finds more logical or reasonable. Rather, anthropological data on indigenous communities show that - at least until the rise of Civilization - humans follow the ideas, views, conducts and practices their ancestors had passed down to them. In fact, not unlike one would expect in an evolutionary optimization process, we inherit the mentality, that naturally leads to the modes of subsistance, strategies and ways of interacting with the environment, which have worked since ancestral times.

It is the group's ethos and culture; probably the best markers by which to define an ethnic group. You see, we do not really know the reasons why, but this is how we view things over here, and how stuff has been done, all since we can remember. It may not stand to reason to think that spirits live in trees, mountains and rivers; you may consider a total non-sense to believe the waters of the river spirit are the source of wisdom and cure of all ills; however, perhaps, you think there is more logic and science in the Western view, in which those who own enough money to hire a powerful attorney, should expect to enjoy a much higher chance to receive a favorable ruling from the justice system? Yes, our perception and understanding of the world is so deeply engrained in our minds, that we never analyze or interrogate them in any way; they are just there, driving our thoughts, conducts and actions. 

According to Graeber and Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything", for XVII-century indigenous North Americans it was as difficult to understand concepts such as obedience, as it would be for us their concept of law and justice, where, not only the culprit, but also his entire lineage or clan was held responsible for the offense and expected to pay some compensation. This view obviously comes to a shock to our Western mentality, where we find most absolutely wrong and unjust that anybody could be held accountable for something he or she has not done. The mistake, however, is to frame this question in moral terms: is it right or is it wrong? If the purpose of a justice system is to uphold the set of moral values, which ensure the good functioning of a society; it is a flawed argument to judge the morality of a specific concept of justice. Indeed, given that our concept of justice is defined by our values (i.e. the kind of society that we want), to our values' eyes, our society's justice system will always be correct. Basically, XVII-century indigenous North Americans' ethical framework will always disapprove our concept of justice, as much as our ethical framework will likewise disapproved theirs. The right and real question is if this is actually the society that we want; or, more specifically, does our society work the way we really want? In that sense, it stands to reason to say that the indigenous North American concept of justice definitely has quite a bit going for it: If we can agree that young men are more inclined to break the rules and these young stallions' insatiable appetite for wealth is generally driven by their relentless urge to impress some girl; it stands to reason that the guys - overdaring as they are - would be more likely to be kept under control, if those who benefit from the illegal action also suffer some consequences for it. On the other hand, it really seens difficult to sustain that our concept of justice works very well, given the much higher levels of criminality of our societies, even though we keep incarcerated a bloodcurdling, ever-growing portion of the population - most of which are men of low socio-economic origin, as a matter of fact -. For millenia we have been arguing about human nature; but from these observations on the levels of criminality and incarceration in Western and indigenous societies, it follows the answer will have to be different depending on what society, and specific group of individuals therein, we are talking about. Considering the numbers, it appears difficult to escape the conclusion, that men of low socio-economic origin are the worst of the worst; but indigenous folks also seem to have been impregnated with some very peculiar human nature of their own, if not casted in a totally different mold altogether. Graeber and Wengrow go to great lengths to prove the rather obvious fact that indigenous folks are capable of conscious thought and reasoning. However, from their magnific and truly illuminating review, it really seems that the question that really warrants consideration is whether we, Western Civilization people, think by ourselves and are capable of rational thinking or just repeat whatever argument we have previously heard from some reknown intellectual or public opinion leader.

* The rise of the system ideology: It used to be that the entire community share the same knowledge and understanding of the world. However, as human discovery turned our knowledge of the world ever more advanced and complex, information became the most valuable asset of all. Indeed, as an elite of families started keeping for themselves exclusive control over knowledge, the most advanced information became the most powerful tool to gain control and dominate the illiterate masses. In the new civilized societies, since the educated elite is most knowledgeable, it is only natural that they will lecture everybody else on the new system's ideology; that is their own account of how things work, the correct and right way of thinking and how stuff needs to be done. You see, I know everything best; so it is better for you, if you follow my guidance and do as I say. 

As human societies have slowly grown more hierarchical, our perception and understanding of the world has evolved through four main stages: First we had an animistic view of the universe, where all things - animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, etc. - was alive, had agency and free will. As just one more creature in this world, we respected, appreciated, often even adored all our companions in the journey of life. Little by little, however, we started believing in a number of more human-like, superpowerful deities, which we worshipped as much as we feared. Given their superior nature, we tried hard to stay in good terms with them; but - not unlike what is the case with a human master - it always seemed impossible to fathom out what on Earth - if anything at all - is that would ever make them happy. Not unlike humans, deities were themselves in constant conflict against one another; thus, if by any chance anybody was able to decipher their ever capricious and delphic, divine designs, whatever pleased one deity was certain to spark the wrath of another. The chain of command completely clarified as we move into the third stage, though. If the universe had been created by a single Almighty, then it all boiled down to earn Its supreme, divine favor. We now knew whose guidance to follow; but, with the advent of the scientific method and rationalism, the most educated among us began to point out, that His account of how things work, was as unconvincing and unreliable, as it was inaccurate and false. Finally, matters came to a head with the American and - even more so decisively - the French revolutions. Under the banner of freedom and rationalism, God was deposed and the divinely-appointed King's head was chopped off. In this fourth stage, everybody is free to believe in God; but Its Kingdom is now restricted to spiritual matters, while all things terrestrial are to be figuered out and determined by the educated elite's privileged brains' intelligent agents. God has so been replaced by the myth of Science, as the voice with the last word onhow things work; but who speaks for Science? Indeed, - given that scientists typically speak in a language as cryptic and difficult to fathom out, as that of ancient oracles - mass-Media is here for us to choose a cotarie of experts with the required knowledge and skills to explain everything to us.

  Evidently, as our understanding and knowledge of the world around us has grown ever more complex, it has become increasingly privatized as well. It used to be that the entire community share the same culture and customs: we all understood the world as our ancestors had explained it to us and we all did things in the fashion our ancestors had passed down to us. There is a good case to be made that, if there is any way to define the term 'ethnicity', it is as the group of folks sharing identical perception and understanding of the world, as well as same fashion of doing things.

Little by little, however, some people grew more knowledgeable than others - or so they claimed -, and began exercising their leadership and dominance over the rest of the ethnic group. Thus, to the degree that the community's account of how things work begins to be dominated by a reduced elite of families, we can say that the ethnic group's ethos, culture and customs become an ideology; the ethnic group's ideology, indeed. Historians usually refer to 'royal ideology' as the set of beliefs, ideas and practices of how things work, that monarchies used to employ to legitimize their supremacy. You see, if I won the battle, it is because I have God's favor; hence you should obey me. Terrified as they are of ever saying anything about our contemporary social system, modern historians will never dare to analyze, not to mention to extend their reasonings, judgements or opinionns, into the present time; but the concept of (system) ideology likewise applies to any system of social organization (with no exception to our current fake-democratic system, obviously. You see, if I have so much money it is because I am very smart; hence I should get all the help, so that I can continue creating jobs and wealth for our beloved nation). In other words, to the degree that, in the so-called civilized societies, the educated elite is most knowledgeable, it is only natural that they will lecture everybody else on their own account of how things work, the correct and right way of thinking and how stuff needs to be done. After all, Civilization can be best characterized by the mindset whereby human beings behave contrary to what would be their natural instinct; because they have been convinced that, in the long run, it is only smart and it will be in his or her best own interest to act in such an unnatural fashion. You see, it used to be that I had managed to convince you that I was the son of God and, therefore I knew everything best. But now, since we came to agree that God does not intervene in the Economy, I will just tell you who are the experts whose knowledge you should trust. It is very telling that violence used to be acceptable in the past, when it was exerted by those at the top of the society to plunder the property of the commonfolk; whereas now that it is the only recourse of the lower classes to challenge the current status-quo of obscene inequality of opportunities, violence is morally appalling and by all means intolerable.  

* Human beings do not go by what our brain's intelligent agent finds most logical, reasonable or sound; but, sensibly enough, by whatever we are taught by the stronger, more knowledgeable or simply more powerful persons, who we believe care for us

Be it as it may, with or without Civilization, human beings of the past and present follow the system's ideology or the community's ethos and culture, in the same way that organisms follow their DNA's dynamics. Indeed, we do not go by what our brain's intelligent agent finds most logical, reasonable or sound; but by whatever we are taught by the wiser and more knowledgeable persons who we feel care for us, whether these are our ancestors, teachers, spiritual guides or Media journalists. For instance, our religious beliefs (or the absence of them), cardinal as they are in defining the way we conduct ourselves through life, are not determined by what our brain's intelligent agent finds most logical, reasonable or sound; but by the views and values, which were inculcated in us during our childhood. Similarly, it is difficult to find anybody in the Western world, who does not believe our so-call Democracy is the best political system ever conceived; whereas folks living under different political systems cannot stop wondering, how there can be so much homelessness and inequality in the West, if our nations are among the wealthiest and most powerful in the world, we enjoy such fantastic levels of scientific and technological development and, most importantly, the government is by the people and for the people.

 

Yes, much is disingenuously said about the government's overbearing power; however, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the threat of violence has never been an effective long-term strategy to dominate anybody. Rather, as a successful individual - however success is measured in the community at the time -, in order to have folks to do as you say, it is only smart to offer your fully-consolidated and well-proven expert guidance on how to achieve one's every aspiration. Indeed, we follow the educated elite's guidance, with the same ingenuousness and childlikeness that the frog hopes the witch will reveal how her spell works, not to mention how to break it. No matter how much they want us to believe intelligence is a gift of the mind, we do not follow the ideas and explanations, which our brain's intelligent agent finds most logical, reasonable or sound. Rather we think according to, and go by, the core ideology in which we have been raised (fake-Democracy, Communism, divinely appointed monarch, etc.), and then follow the specific ideology that best fits our interests (white supremacy, women's rights, blacks' rights, LGBT rights, etc.). The system's ideology is always elaborated by those at the top, in order to justify and legitimize their elevated, privileged status. Hence, unless you are part of the upper class, the fundamental principles of this core ideology will play against you. However, as much as we are all so inclined to only embrace the beliefs that best fits our interests, it will be practically impossible to resist to the core ideas of the Ideology: your parents, teachers, spiritual guides and the most knowledgeable people in your community will drill them into your mind; because previously their parents, teachers, spiritual guides and the most knowledgeable people in their communities had drilled them into their minds. If everybody holds them most holy, who are you, little fish of the pond, to know better? Make no mistake, if you ever try to follow any logic to reach the conclusion, that it is most absolutely insane a justice system, where those privileged individuals wealthy enough to hire an attorney enjoy a decisive advantage to get a favorable ruling from the court; it is not that the whole world has gone crazy, but there is something fundamentally wrong about you.      

* If, after gazillions of years of evolution, Nature found the freaking critical happy medium between competition and cooperation; do you not think you are so smart to fix it.

The pernicious effects of the assumption of an intelligent agent operating our minds cannot be overstated. We are so stupidly mesmerized with our genius, that we can no longer see what is just before our nose. We are so absorbed by our hubris, that everywhere we look, we think we can do it so much better. THe world has existed for infinite years, working marvelously, and will continue doing so for infinite more years after we go, unless we manage to screw it all over before we kick the bucket and take the way of the dinosaurs. Gazillions of species have explored over gazillions of generations every possible answer to every possible question, and yet, here we are emending perfection. We are so stupidly taken by our brain's intelligent agent that all what we can think is that it cannot be good, if it was not reasoned out by an intelligent. agent. There is a reason why in all animal species the nose is above the mouth, and the answer is not that an intelligent agent figured it out; but that those species that fail to hit upon the optimal design are very likely to disappear. There is a reason why we have a sense of smell and a sense of taste, and the answer is not to signify one's superior nature over our social lessers; but that those species that fail to hit upon the optimal strategy are very likely to disappear.

A careful analysis of Nature reveals that optimality is always found at a perfect equilibrium between competition and cooperation. A complex system will be in an optimal state, so long the parts that make it up maintain a perfect balance of competition and cooperation among one another. There is in fact a very tight link between optimality and equilibrium. It is certainly difficult to argue that a system is optimal, if it is about to disappear. But, how can we be sure the system is still going to be here tomorrow, if the thing does not stop moving? Given that the flap of a butterfly's wing in one corner of the globe can eventually cause some tornado somewhere else, if ain't broke, don't fix it.

As Scott points out, it had been a shortsighted approach for barbarian raiders to suck their agrarian prey's blood as if there were no tomorrow; however, it had been equally foolish to abandon themselves to the beatifically blind, unconditional and unrestrained, passionate love and care for those folks they needed to leech off. It is certainly good to know the sun will rise again tomorrow; but, if you do not eat today, how do you expect to make it to the next sunrise? In fact, there is a good case to be made, that if barbarian raiders eventually went extinct; it is because they went too soft on their preys. Indeed, not unlike the host that shakes off a parasitic pathogen, sedentary civilized societies took advantage of the breathing room and slack they were allowed, to develop technologies and - most crucially - ideological and organizational innovations, with which to fight off and drive into extinction the barbarian raiders that used to harry them. Goodness gracious, if it were not bad enough to live in such a wild world, we now find it is also maddening complex: You need to compete against all things around you, for you have to nourish yourself; but, as any indigenous North American could tell you, simultaneously you should appreciate and adore all things around you, for you will need to eat tomorrow as well. Definitely, as any barbarian raider could tell you, sometimes it feels like you just can never get it right; either you care too much or you are excessively abusive. But, as any indigenous North American could tell you, a happy medium between competition and cooperation does exist. Now, we can argue until Hell freezes over how did indigenous North Americans find the perfect equilibrium between exploitation and love: perhaps an intelligent agent reasoned it out, perhaps they extracted conclusions after hunting horses to extinction, perhaps... Be it as it may, if they hit the happy medium, don't you think you are so smart that you can fix it.

* Worshipping the supremely intelligent agent, who is going to fix Nature's perfect designs.

  Since the advent of Civilization, as an elite of privileged individuals rose over everyone else, it became paramount to establish one's superior intellect. How do you expect anybody to follow you, if you do not have a good grasp of how things work? Obviously the ultimate test was the battlefield; but, since it is not practical to fight a battle every day, money would do. After all, if you have a buttload of money,you must have done pretty damn well on the battlefield. Regardless, you cannot be very far off, if you have a big bank account. Now, anybody can hit the jackpot at some point, or just make a fortune by unscrupulous means; but, if, for instance, you know how to appreciate the finest food, your exquisitely distinguished nature will be unquestionable. Yet, who gets to say which is the finest food? Moreover, since when there is some food more exquisite than other?

Yes, there is a good reason why over gazillions of generations animals developed a sense of smell and a sense of taste. Before you take any food in, you want to make sure it is safe and healthy. First, it is only smart to sniff it from a distance. If nothing feels wrong, we can bring it in for a closer analysis. We will still be able to spit it out, should we find it disgusting. If we have not tasted it before or simply cannot recognize what it is, it is natural to be skeptical.

However, if we remember having eaten it before, and nothing went wrong, we will slowly get to like it more and more each time. Now, if the design would not already be good enough, it nothing but keeps getting better. Since our taste buds evolved to associate taste to nutrients and other substances, and we then, during our lifetime, learn to recognize foods by their taste, whenever we are low on certain nutrients, our instinct will crave for the kind of food, where we can get it from. On the other hand, we will feel a lower appetite for any other food high in nutrients, which we do not need as much at the present time. To make a long story short, the design is just supreme. And yet, here are the most exquisite, privileged and gifted among us to sentence that, if we do not know to appreciate the finest food, there is something wrong with our taste buds, or , more precisely, if our taste buds cannot tell the most exquisite food, there is something wrong about us. Something really wrong, indeed: here is the most intelligent species on the face of the planet wholeheartedly following such an ideotic ideology.

 

Yes, for some very awkward reason, since the advent of Civilization, as an elite of privileged individuals rose over everyone else, the society's dominant way of thinking has not stopped blowing its own trumpets over the marvels of the human brain (at least some most privileged individuals'), as much as it has expressed contempt and deep repugnance for human nature (at least some most vulgar folks'). Definitely, the System's ideology dictates and imposes what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is beautiful and what is despicable, who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is bad, who is beautiful and who is despicable... Strikingly enough, with the passing of time, as the System's ideology has grown more and more intense and pervasive, human brain's hubris has intensified to the same degree that the criticism on human nature has excaladed more severe, overbearing and moralizing. Yes, at times it feels as not even the most basic aspects of our nature are free from fault. For instance, Homer Simpson will never feel any appreciation for Marge's prodigious brain. Execrably and reprehensibly enough, men only care about women's looks. Women, on their part, should not feel content surrending themselves to a vanilla, as unadventurous as uninspiring, ordinary, mundane, dull, insipid, degrading run-of-the-mill life as a housewife, comfortably sitting at home, unwarily expecting her husband to provide for her every need and desire. Rather, women should dream and pursue their dreams. Definitely, every self-respecting woman should get a paid job outside the home and be financially independent of her overbearing, insensitive and unappreciative man. 

As much as journalists work day and night, striving to educate us on how to be better citizens, indefatigably going to any length necessary to fix each and all of our countless faults, all efforts seem to be hopeless. Fake-Democracy is such a fantastic political system; but, how is the Government By The People ever going to work well, if we are so caitiff, immoral and ignoble? Goodness gracious, we thought the King's clergy was insufferably and oppressingly moralizing! I guess, if such an odious ideology has become so powerful, it must be for there are some people, who benefit lavishly from it. Yet, one can only wonder, if human nature is so awful, how did the human species come to be so successful, to the extent that we consider ourselves God's most precious creation? Indeed, why has it never occured to anybody that if we have achieved such fantastic and stunning levels of development, security and comfort; it is exactly because of how we are? In other words, if Mother Nature had made us any different, we had never made it this far. Definitely, if ain't broke, don't fix it. We are certainly free of straying away from the rules of nature, but we will then stray away from the optimal designs. 

* how did we figure out how do the most complex things work (i.e. animal and plant domestication, prescribed burning, state formation, etc.?). Was it someone's light bulb going off or did the community's knowledge, wisdom and ways of thinking progressively consolidate all the little cues and findings we gathered from trial and error throughout Evolution?

The key question is therefore: what are the rules of Nature? Absolutely, the right question is not what is happiness, but how to be happy. The right question is not whether they love me or not, but how to win the love of the people that matter to us. The right question is not what is intelligence, but how to act intelligently.

In "The Dawn of Everything", Graeber and Wengrow make a fascinating review of all the different social arrangements observable in indigenous communities past and present all around the globe. Graeber and Wengrow exhibit little doubts in their belief that all these patterns are conscious choices made by self-conscious, intelligent human agents. There is, however, no evidence to support any such claim. True, it is usually said the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; but there is a trick to the argument, which is always missed: namely, since it is impossible to prove the inexistence of anything, it is likewise impossible to gather any conclusive evidence to prove the inexistence of anything. In fact, Graeber and Wengrow finish their book sentencing: "We are surrounded by myths". But, the absence of evidence in support of any myth, is evidence of the falsity of any myth?

According to the U.S. National Park Services' website, for thousands of years, Native North Americans (as many other indigenous peoples all around the globe) "used fire to clear areas for crops and travel, to manage the land for specific species of both plants and animals, to hunt game, and for many other important uses." However, as deforestation became a matter of concern in the XIX and XX centuries, men of science and letters raised their voices against these fire practices, to the extent that the U.S. government eventually adopted a "fire suppression policy" outlawing intentional burnings. Over the last decades the dominant way of thinking has changed, though; to the extent that we no longer speak of "intentional burnings", but refer to this practice by the more romantic name of "cultural burning" or the more scientific "prescribed burning". Indeed, today, still according to the U.S. government, we have come to understand there are many benefits to cultural burning: First, burning helped clear undergrowth, allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor and promoting the growth of specific plants important for food, medicine, and cultural materials, such as berries, medicinal herbs, native grasses, basketry materials like hazel shoots, and acorn-producing oaks and chestnuts. Second, clearing undergrowth and fostering new growth in turn improved foraging conditions for game animals, attracting deer, elk, and bison to desirable areas. It also supported populations of animals that relied on specific plants or conditions created by fire, such as rodents, turkeys, and bears. Reducing dense underbrush made it also easier for people to move through forests, track game, and hunt more effectively. In addition, fire could help manage populations of pests like insects and ticks, as well as control plant diseases. Last but not least, regular, controlled burns reduced the accumulation of dead vegetation and flammable materials, preventing the occurrence of larger, more destructive wildfires. 

Now, if cultural burning has so many great benefits, why were we civilized peoples so adamantly against it? The first answer that comes to mind is that indigenous peoples must have not been able to spell out, why they conducted these fire practices. If that had been the case, it would speak against Graeber and Wengrow's line of thinking, whereby cultural burning had been a conscious choice. Yet, it does not seem reasonable to think that indigenous folks were not aware of, at least, some of the pros. For instance, they must have known that it made it easier to move through forests, track game, and hunt more effectively. In fact, this may be a plausible explanation of how the practice originated: they may have lighted a fire to clear a way through the forest and later realized some additional positive consequences. For that sake, however, the fire must not have needed to be intentional; but could bery well have been due to natural causes. Be it as it may, the problem then should have been that the explanations given by the indigenous people )whichever these had been) should have not moved our mens of science and letters. The concern (theirs and ours) was, and still is, deforestation, and it was therefore of little significance (and, needless to say, it still is), whether Native Americans' fire practices facilitated hunting and travel, enhanced wildlife habitat and food sources, or promoted the growth of specific plants important for food, medicine, and cultural materials. Evidently, here again, the mistake is to frame this kind of arguments in moral terms: are Native Americans' fire practices good or bad? Obviously whatever is good for certain people has very often negative consequences for other folks. Needless to say, if we came to appreciate intentional burnings, and so began referring to it as 'cultural burning' or 'prescribed burning',; it is because scientists eventually realized, that it helped preventing catastrophic wildfires. It shows that, contrary to common belief, Science - one more of those myths - does not always have the correct answer to everything. In fact, scientists never all agree on anything; but there are always opposing views. This is, however, not meant as a criticism against scientists for their failure to understand, how cultural burning could reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. In this truly chaotic world of ours, it is basically impossible to know beforehand, what will be all the consequences resulting from a given action. Indeed, let us be honest, how on earth could have anyone ever imagined that burning forests may actually help to prevent deforestation? How on Earth anyone may be able to predict all the tornados the flap of a butterfly wing will trigger over the next weeks? It does, however, speak against Graeber and Wengrow's line of thinking, whereby the practice of culture burning had been a conscious choice. If XX-century scientists, with all the knowledge and resources nowadays at our disposal, were not able to realize, that burning forest could reduce the risk of wildfires, it certainly seems difficult to see, how indigenous folks all over the globe, living thousands of years ago, had such an aha moment. Of course, when it comes to aha moments, we can never rule out the possibility (it only takes to believe...); but, if only for deforestation was not even a concept that anybody knew of thousands of years ago, it does not make any sense, that anybody could have factored any such idea in his or her reasonings. At the end of the day, however, we will never be able to find a definite answer to, whether cultural  (or prescribed) burning was an entirely conscious choice, or indigenous peoples only stumbled upon it. In all likelihood, the solution to the conundrum lies somewhere in between. Indeed, as a general rule, all what seems safe to say is that we may often be able to anticipate the most immediate effects of our actions; but we will only realize many other consequences after the fact, while there will still be a third group of long-term implications, which we will ignore and will only come to grasp after a long time has passed and we have accumulated abundant experience with the phenomenon in question. 

 

In fact, Graeber and Wengrow's enlightening review on indigenous peoples' political systems and social arrangements shed quite some light on how such choices of social organization may have emerged. As Graeber and Wengrow point out, Native American communities in Central and Eastern North America exhibited in the XVII and XVIII centuries a clear and strong ethos opposed to social inequality. This was so much so that "even finding terms to translate concepts like ‘lord’, ‘commandment’ or ‘obedience’ into indigenous languages: proved to be incredibly difficult for the first European missioners and explorers to come in contact with these indigenous North American peoples. Thus, it was not really that they refused to recognize other people's inherent superior nature, or that they chose to disobey anybody who dared to make such a claim of superiority; rather, they just could not conceive such ideas, they were simply incapable of understanding such concepts, for the simple reason that nobody had ever taught them anything of that sort. Clearly, it was not part of their conceptual framework, because their ancestral traditions did not conceive that there could be some individuals more intelligent than others. For sure there was an understanding that the oldest folks in the community were more experienced and wiser; but - much unlike in our Western traditions - nobody was inherently superior. Obviously, unless you had no other choice, why would you ever want to obey anybody, who you do not recognize more intelligent than yourself?  

The question then becomes where could this wonderful mentality come from? Graeber and Wengrow suggest the answer may trace back to Cahokia. In the early second millenium, the city of Cahokia rose in the neighborhood of today's St. Louis as the largest and most influential urban settlements of the Mississippian culture, which developed complex societies across much of what is now the Central and Southeastern U.S.. Albeit now forgotten and vastly ignored by most of us, Cahokia was one of those impressive and publicly admired civilizations, featuring stunning monumental constructions and fascinating scientific and technological development. Not unlike any other big civilization of the past, the story did not end well at all. Although nobody knows what exactly happened, archeological findings suggests that the overbearing power exerted by the Cahokian elite may have led to a catastrophic political upheaval. Be it as it may, it seems the whole experience was rather traumatic. In fact, Graeber and Wengrow recount the emergence in the succeeding centuries of popular legends and oral traditions, cautioning the new generations against the rise of any overbearing group of people. Clearly, the Devil knows more for being old than for being smart or powerful. That was the power of ancestral oral traditions: they extended the wisdom and valuable memories of the community's most experienced folks into endless generations. Undeniably, the details got blurred and disappear with time, but the core of the message, the moral of the story, always survived. Then, having been set on the right track, with all that experience at our disposal, it becomes much easier to fathom out how things work. Now, did anybody reasoned it out in advance or it only was understood after the fact? Is it someone's bulb going off or is it the community's ethos and culture driving our thoughts in the same fashion that the DNA operates the organism's functions and behaviors? Admittedly, when it comes to aha moments, we can never rule out any possibility; but one thing is at least certain: it is only stupid to repeat the same choice of the past, knowing it had fatal consequences.

Definitely, it is critical to learn from mistakes; however, if the mistake takes one to the grave, it is a little bit too late to learn anything. This is where the community's ethos and culture comes in handy, though. That is how we became more knowledgeable or - if you prefer the intelligent-agent line of thinking - a whole lot smarter; at least those adhering to such way of thinking, that is. One step forward here is then followed by a mishap there. Yes, the ideology, our way of thinking, may not always be correct. Quite the opposite, our ideas of how things work very often will be misguided; particularly so if said ideas have been imposed by some special-interest elite group; rather than by the community's ancestors. I mean, for sure the Cahokian elite did not share the belief, that they were not of superior nature than the rest of the people. However, even if one community's ideology's flaws end up having fatal consequences, hopefully, just hopefully, some other community following a different ideology will learn from the mistake, and continue from there the optimization process of our understanding of how things work.

An evolutionary model of this kind does not only explain, how indigenous North American's communities evolved an ethos and culture of opposition to the rise of any elite of privileged families, but also how ancient barbarian raiders came to find a happy medium and, at last, spared the life of the goose that lays the golden eggs. Indeed, regardless of how exactly the realization occured, if the new knowledge does not get one way or another transmitted into the next generations, it will obviously be lost with the passing of the genius that gave it birth. Whether some big shot reasoned out in advance that they werd digging their own grave, some folk came to fathom out that the neighbors had killed their goose that lays the golden eggs, or it was just that the guys simply did not know how to slaughter the freaking goose, the new piece of information needs to make it into the community's collective mind, or it will disappear and all that prodigious intellectual effort would be to no avail.