Okay, I’ve been pondering this for awhile and I just can’t draw a decent hypothesis. I thought maybe you could provide some insights.
Why do humans help other humans in need? I can’t find a good reason for this behavior to develop. No other animals seem to do this nearly as much as humans do.
Why do we have a society? What caused it to develop?
Did civilization (permanant homes) result from society, or vice versa?
P. S.: I’m not looking for a philisophical debate, just causes for this, otherwise I would post this in GD.
Let me ask you this: It’s 10,000 BC. How would you survive best: Working with others, helping each other farming, gethering food, protecting each other etc etc OR
Killing or blowing off every other human in need, fending for yourself, trying to survive on your own, with no one else to protect you from others of similar ilk or predators?
Actually animals do often help each other in need. The logical reason for this behavior to develop is beacause if you help others, the hope is that others will help you. If we did not, we would eventually cease to exist as a species.
Societies developed when humans learned that when they cooperate and help each other, they tend to live longer and prosper (to quote that great anthroplogist, Mr. Spock), rather than hunt and gather for themselves.
Society and civilazation is a step in Darwinian Survival of the Fittest Evolution.
Of course, parts of Northern New Jersey are still exceptions to this rule.
Well, I haven’t formally studied this, but it seems that most mammals’ lives are based around a social structure. Mammals give birth to live young, which mothers then nurse; pregnant mothers need more food, but may not be as quick, strong or otherwise able to defend themselves.
I have heard that one of the strong points for hominids is that our brains aren’t fully developed at birth. Our social structure keeps us alive until we can walk, think, etc. a year later, and allows us to get a decade or two of maturity and experience before we become adults and become contributing members of the pack (or of society.)
Like I said though, I haven’t studied this. Most of this is the impressions that I’ve gotten from TV shows, National Geographic, etc., etc…
Seriously, maybe if you look into the library for anything on “altruism” in relation to biology you will find your answers. The subject is a little big to cover adequately on a message board.
Wolves and hyenas hunt in packs. Lions for a group called a pride.
It makes more sense for people to work together towards a common goal. This, led to units of people living in communities which over time grew larger. With the devision of labor people had more time to think and invent. With new inventions became more time spent on art, learning and such.
Such is my WAG.
I know if I were stranded with a group of people somewhere remote. Working as a group would produce a better chance for survival than not.
Many animals from ants to elephants do sometimes seem to behave altruistically.
The beneficiaries of such altruism tend to be closely related individuals or at least individuals similar enough to the altruistic individual that they are likely to share genes.
A simple explanation for such altruism is that genes that encourage altruistic behavior by an individual towards other individuals likely to have the same gene will have a selective advantage.
DrFidelius is correct that “The subject is a little big to cover adequately on a message board.”
I haven’t read it but I understand that a good book that will answer your question is “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins.
Actually, someone has, and it’s one of my favorite recent reads – good enough that I’ve read it twice in the last couple of months (and I almost never re-read something so soon).
The someone is Matt Ridley, ex-science reporter for The Economist. The book is The Origins of Virtue : Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation. Ridley explores in detail the reasons for altruism in other species, then moves on to examining the development of social behaviors in other primate species and the ways in which humans benefit from co-operation.
One caveat for readers of a “liberal” (in contemporary political parlance) mindset – the last section will piss you off to no end. Ridley makes a strong argument along straight libertarian lines for enlightened self-interest and private property rights as the best possible solution to many problems. He may overstate the case somewhat in making this argument, but it doesn’t diminish the brilliant (and well supported) analysis of altruism in the human animal that the rest of the book presents.