Societies weren’t built on empathy, they were built on security. Not just physical security but food as well. No society in history was built on empathy, ever.
What about caring for the elderly and disabled? We see anthropological evidence of many behaviours that can only be explained by compassion and empathy, some of which would have actually detracted from security.
The notion that the early formation of societies was based on security rather than empathy is outdated. Compassion has many evolutionary advantages, especially in primate species where offspring are born vulnerable. It’s clearly evident in other primates who live in groups (or ‘societies’), as a driving force of cooperation and group cohesion.
Those papers are both fascinating reads, and I highly recommend them for a deeper understanding of why and how empathy is crucial to our success as a species.
Right, and I don’t doubt you, empathy is how society grew. But empathy is not why society started.
Keep in mind that you wanted to keep old people in your tribe to look after the children. The men and women were looking for food and firewood and building materials. Losing children means the end of the tribe. Feeding the elderly is still security. It simply makes sense from a survival standpoint.
Obviously they had empathy as well. If you didnt, you wouldn’t bother to bury the dead, let alone give up valuable items as offerings, such as an ax. As far as I’m aware, that practice dates back at least 40k years. So obviously there was empathy there.
However, I would say that that empathy comes from security. “They were one of us”
But a rival tribe member dies? Do you think they would gather for that scenario? That would be empathy. And there’s no proof of that in a prehistorical context.
Societies weren’t built on empathy, they were built on security. Not just physical security but food as well. No society in history was built on empathy, ever.
What the hell do you think sharing food is all about?
Sharing food is keeping alliances, is security.
What about caring for the elderly and disabled? We see anthropological evidence of many behaviours that can only be explained by compassion and empathy, some of which would have actually detracted from security.
The notion that the early formation of societies was based on security rather than empathy is outdated. Compassion has many evolutionary advantages, especially in primate species where offspring are born vulnerable. It’s clearly evident in other primates who live in groups (or ‘societies’), as a driving force of cooperation and group cohesion.
Here’s a recent paper (2022) by Penny Spikins, PhD at the University of York, Department of Archaeology, that explores how compassion shaped early human evolution and the formation of societies: The Evolutionary Basis for Human Empathy, Compassion and Generosity.
And here’s another from 2011 by Goetz et al that explores in detail the evolutionary advantages of compassion: Compassion: An Evolutionary Analysis and Empirical Review.
Those papers are both fascinating reads, and I highly recommend them for a deeper understanding of why and how empathy is crucial to our success as a species.
e: a word
Right, and I don’t doubt you, empathy is how society grew. But empathy is not why society started.
Keep in mind that you wanted to keep old people in your tribe to look after the children. The men and women were looking for food and firewood and building materials. Losing children means the end of the tribe. Feeding the elderly is still security. It simply makes sense from a survival standpoint.
Obviously they had empathy as well. If you didnt, you wouldn’t bother to bury the dead, let alone give up valuable items as offerings, such as an ax. As far as I’m aware, that practice dates back at least 40k years. So obviously there was empathy there.
However, I would say that that empathy comes from security. “They were one of us”
But a rival tribe member dies? Do you think they would gather for that scenario? That would be empathy. And there’s no proof of that in a prehistorical context.