many pointed to groups such as the Aztecs or various Amazonian tribes whose usage of psychedelic substances does not reflect any of the evolutionary advantages
Feel free to disagree, but I believe that argument is poorly framed. Edit: It’s probably correct to say that psychidelics didn’t have evolutionary impact on the Aztecs or amazonians, but it seems like an apples and oranges comparison with pre-humans.
The Aztecs, also according to Wikipedia, were a society that flourished between 1300-1571. Any evolution that happened was likely based around the rules of that society, to a degree. For them, psychedelics were probably more of a religious curiosity. With religion being a key driver in the decisions of many societies, psychedelics were likely still driving evolution somewhat, but were now a few degrees removed from immediate survival.
Stoned apes were pre-human and pre-society. Because of that, there was probably a cap on how much advantage psychedelics were able to provide once some levels of creativity and self-awareness were achieved.
What I am saying is that there is a huge difference between a Lucy that was able to spot a lion in the distance and a society that could band together and fight off an attacking lion as a quick response. The use of psychedelics transitioned from a matter of life or death, to something that was basically a form of entertainment.
How many wars and hunts were planned around the ramblings of tripping shamans? Those decisions likely pruned (or spawned) massive branches in our evolutionary tree. Regardless, there is the issue of scale and time: A small group of pre-humans that has the ability to out-smart a lion is likely more impactful to evolution than the thousands of open heart surgeries that were performed by the Aztecs.
And that is good! You can still have opinions based on the dozens of papers for and against the actual impact of psilocybin or other psychedelics on evolution.
This is a massive topic so be forewarned you could spend months reading about this.
Feel free to disagree, but I believe that argument is poorly framed. Edit: It’s probably correct to say that psychidelics didn’t have evolutionary impact on the Aztecs or amazonians, but it seems like an apples and oranges comparison with pre-humans.
The Aztecs, also according to Wikipedia, were a society that flourished between 1300-1571. Any evolution that happened was likely based around the rules of that society, to a degree. For them, psychedelics were probably more of a religious curiosity. With religion being a key driver in the decisions of many societies, psychedelics were likely still driving evolution somewhat, but were now a few degrees removed from immediate survival.
Stoned apes were pre-human and pre-society. Because of that, there was probably a cap on how much advantage psychedelics were able to provide once some levels of creativity and self-awareness were achieved.
What I am saying is that there is a huge difference between a Lucy that was able to spot a lion in the distance and a society that could band together and fight off an attacking lion as a quick response. The use of psychedelics transitioned from a matter of life or death, to something that was basically a form of entertainment.
How many wars and hunts were planned around the ramblings of tripping shamans? Those decisions likely pruned (or spawned) massive branches in our evolutionary tree. Regardless, there is the issue of scale and time: A small group of pre-humans that has the ability to out-smart a lion is likely more impactful to evolution than the thousands of open heart surgeries that were performed by the Aztecs.
OK, cool. I’d still go with the opinion of the scientific community.
And that is good! You can still have opinions based on the dozens of papers for and against the actual impact of psilocybin or other psychedelics on evolution.
This is a massive topic so be forewarned you could spend months reading about this.
Here is one of many missed references: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8514078/