"Prehistoric conflict hastened human brain's capacity ..." Topic

DELETED BECAUSE OF THE BUG……………..

…for collaboration.

"How humans evolved high intelligence, required for complex collaborative activities, despite the various costs of having a big brain has long puzzled evolutionary biologists. While the human brain represents only about two percent of the body's weight, it uses about 20 percent of the energy consumed. Other costs of having a large brain include a need for extended parental care due to a long growth period, difficulties giving birth to larger-headed babies, and some mental illnesses associated with brain complexity. So how did the human brain evolve to become so large and complex?

Another long-running question is how did humans evolve strong innate preferences for cooperative behavior, as cooperative behavior is vulnerable to exploitation by cheaters and "free-riders." A free-rider doesn't contribute or cooperate and thereby undermines the effectiveness of the group's collaborative effort, something scientists call "the collective action problem." Thus, collaborative behavior is expected to be rare, and indeed, in animals it is typically limited to close relatives. Humans, however, are a unique species where collaboration is widespread and not limited to relatives…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Fascinating! Thank you Tango01 :)

OK as far as it goes.

But I'm not sold. I think there's another side to this as well. I think that the development of the very human concept of love has a big role. That is love and affection beyond the bonds of self interest and self preservation. I have no theories . This does not discount the role of conflict, only that it is insufficient to explain humans.

After "all's fair in love and war" might not just be a cliché.

um, no, as way, way back then, being a free-loader was a risky occupation. While the rest of the tribe co-operated, the free-loader got lazy & out-of-shape. When the tribe had to bug out quickly, the free-loader couldn't quite keep up, and frequently got eaten by the attacking lions or camelopards, allowing the rest of the tribe to safely escape. The paleo-sociologists aren't certainly smarter than those they presume to study, as the tribe understood the benefits of supporting a non-productive member for this function versus losing a productive member.

(And Ottoathome is close. Substitute "sex" for "love" and the theory about matches the one I read in a book on the same subject a while ago… ;-)

Glad you enjoyed it my friend! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Naah Zephyr… even the freeloader got sex. It's love.

Freeloaders probably don't care … that's why they are labelled freeloaders ….? :-)))))