What Keeps Small-Group Social Animal Groups From Growing Larger?

[charles brough]

We humans lived millions of years as hunting-gathering groups of roughly thirty-five or so people-size. Spiker monkeys live in about twenty-five individual size groups. Other groups of social animals are genrally larger or smaller, but their group size is also unique to each of their species.

 

This is an important issue because we too evolved as small group primates. So it should have some bearing on what is happening to us in modern times. If not, why not? In what way might we have been seemingly sidestepping our genetic engineering?

 

In all such small group social animals, the groups break up when they exceed the optimal number for that particular species. The group size has little or nothing to do with the size of the territory or food supply. Rather than expanding in size to fill both the territory and food supply, the groups themselves multiply in number.

 

There has to be some evolved mechanism in us and other small group animals, one that causes this breakup phenomena. What is the mechanism? Is it genetic? How does it work? Is it working on us now?

[coldcreation]

We humans lived millions of years as hunting-gathering groups of roughly thirty-five or so people-size. Spiker monkeys live in about twenty-five individual size groups. Other groups of social animals are genrally larger or smaller, but their group size is also unique to each of their species.

 

This is an important issue because we too evolved as small group primates. So it should have some bearing on what is happening to us in modern times. If not, why not? In what way might we have been seemingly sidestepping our genetic engineering?

 

In all such small group social animals, the groups break up when they exceed the optimal number for that particular species. The group size has little or nothing to do with the size of the territory or food supply. Rather than expanding in size to fill both the territory and food supply, the groups themselves multiply in number.

 

There has to be some evolved mechanism in us and other small group animals, one that causes this breakup phenomena. What is the mechanism? Is it genetic? How does it work? Is it working on us now?

 

It's an interesting subject, but why did you start 5 threads on the same topic?

[Fluxus]

It's an interesting subject, but why did you start 5 threads on the same topic?

Because he has an idée fixe that "ideology" is solely responsible for allowing humans to live in large groups. And, of course, this ideology is "breaking down" (despite the fact that it's far less challenged today than, say, in the late 20s and early 30s.)

[Michaelangelica]

Do we really live in large grorps?

i would have thought most would be lucky to have a family/social group of more than 30.

[Rade]

To the questions asked in the OP.

Q: If not, why not? In what way might we have been seemingly sidestepping our genetic engineering ?

A: Small group behavior is important for humans today, but not in the same way as when humans lived as hunter-gatherers. The way we sidestepped (expanded) small group size is when humans became domesticated ~8000-7000 years ago, most likely triggered by advancements in language and writing. Today humans maintain many of the hunter-gatherer genetic behavior of interacting in small groups. We can all list many small groups we interact with in day-to-day life from family, to work, to social, to religion, etc. Also, as a side comment, the genetic behavior of animals and early hunter-gathered humans is not "engineered". The term genetic engineering only came to have meaning after discovery of genes on the DNA molecule in early 1950's.

 

Q: What is the mechanism? Is it genetic? How does it work? Is it working on us now?

A: The most common discussed mechanism responsible for small social groups of mammals not growing past an upper size limit has to do with the limits of the mammalian brain to store information for all the possible unique "inter" group interactions between individuals. It is very much a genetic mechanism. Consider why ant groups are so large and chimp groups much smaller. The individual ants are not genetically programed to interact with other ants as unique individuals (relative, friend, stranger, mate, etc.). For each ant, everyone in the group they meet has the same name and identity...ant.

 

As an individual human you have mental capacity to interact on a day-to-day basis with a limited number of people, that limit is very much related to genetics of brain development. The trigger that leads to the break-up is likely a function of limited food resources for the size of the group, that is, the group reaches what is called the carrying capacity of its environment for some vital limited resource. This would explain why domestication would lead to the opposite effect of allowing very large group sizes. Today, both humans and ants are farmers (ants farm fungus), which allows them to live in large groups.

[charles brough]

To the questions asked in the OP.

Q: If not, why not? In what way might we have been seemingly sidestepping our genetic engineering ?

A: Small group behavior is important for humans today, but not in the same way as when humans lived as hunter-gatherers. The way we sidestepped (expanded) small group size is when humans became domesticated ~8000-7000 years ago, most likely triggered by advancements in language and writing. Today humans maintain many of the hunter-gatherer genetic behavior of interacting in small groups. We can all list many small groups we interact with in day-to-day life from family, to work, to social, to religion, etc. Also, as a side comment, the genetic behavior of animals and early hunter-gathered humans is not "engineered". The term genetic engineering only came to have meaning after discovery of genes on the DNA molecule in early 1950's.

 

Q: What is the mechanism? Is it genetic? How does it work? Is it working on us now?

A: The most common discussed mechanism responsible for small social groups of mammals not growing past an upper size limit has to do with the limits of the mammalian brain to store information for all the possible unique "inter" group interactions between individuals. It is very much a genetic mechanism. Consider why ant groups are so large and chimp groups much smaller. The individual ants are not genetically programed to interact with other ants as unique individuals (relative, friend, stranger, mate, etc.). For each ant, everyone in the group they meet has the same name and identity...ant.

 

As an individual human you have mental capacity to interact on a day-to-day basis with a limited number of people, that limit is very much related to genetics of brain development. The trigger that leads to the break-up is likely a function of limited food resources for the size of the group, that is, the group reaches what is called the carrying capacity of its environment for some vital limited resource. This would explain why domestication would lead to the opposite effect of allowing very large group sizes. Today, both humans and ants are farmers (ants farm fungus), which allows them to live in large groups.

 

 

I placed this thread in a number of fields in the forums such as zoology, biology, and anthropology to see if I could get one good response. I think this is the best at least so far, but even here I think something is missing.

 

For one thing, I am puzzled by the statement that we "became domesticated some 8000-7000 years ago." The human mainstream developed agriculture and the domestication of other animals by then, but I don't now of any reason why that would lead to genetic change. Our language-bred ideological systems would have seemingly adapted us to fixed territorieds. Genetically, we would still be small-group primates. Genetic change could not have occured in a mere few thousand years.

 

As you stated, we still do relate to our church groups, even form into military squads, classrooms, orchestras, etc. But indespensable is the overlooked large groups we relate to and which our allegence to ("to the common good") has become fundamental to our survival. We form states, nations, and even vast groups of nations---such as Islam, the Christian-based West, Hindu India and Nepal and even the East Asian Marxist world (China and Northf Korea). As small group primates, how did we manage to acquire a pride in our own civilization---whether Western, Muslim, Hindu? We could not have done it without ideology. And we are totally dependent upon our ideological systems continuing to sustain our societies.

 

You mention that the size of most small-group animals is determined by the ecological territory and its food supply, but that is not really the case. With vast space and abundat food, the group size still does not exceed the usual range. Instead, the groups divide into more groups. This is true of howler and spider monkeys, chimps, human hunting/gathering groups, and many others.

 

Why is that? What goes on in the too-large groups that causes them to break up? What happens to the world when its ideological systems no longer manage to adequately bond people into their society and the general Secular Humanism-bonded civilization?

[Essay]

For one thing, I am puzzled by the statement that we "became domesticated some 8000-7000 years ago." The human mainstream developed agriculture and the domestication of other animals by then, but I don't now of any reason why that would lead to genetic change. Our language-bred ideological systems would have seemingly adapted us to fixed territorieds. Genetically, we would still be small-group primates. Genetic change could not have occured in a mere few thousand years.

 

As you stated, we still do relate to our church groups, even form into military squads, classrooms, orchestras, etc. But indespensable is the overlooked large groups we relate to and which our allegence to ("to the common good") has become fundamental to our survival. We form states, nations, and even vast groups of nations---such as Islam, the Christian-based West, Hindu India and Nepal and even the East Asian Marxist world (China and Northf Korea). As small group primates, how did we manage to acquire a pride in our own civilization---whether Western, Muslim, Hindu? We could not have done it without ideology. And we are totally dependent upon our ideological systems continuing to sustain our societies.

 

You mention that the size of most small-group animals is determined by the ecological territory and its food supply, but that is not really the case. With vast space and abundat food, the group size still does not exceed the usual range. Instead, the groups divide into more groups. This is true of howler and spider monkeys, chimps, human hunting/gathering groups, and many others.

 

Why is that? What goes on in the too-large groups that causes them to break up? What happens to the world when its ideological systems no longer manage to adequately bond people into their society and the general Secular Humanism-bonded civilization?

...Domestication affects Diet... among many other things....

===But....

 

 

You seem to be discussing Dunbar's Number.

"Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. "

 

"Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements; 200 as the upper bound on the number of academics in a discipline's sub-specialization...."

 

"Dunbar, in Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, proposes furthermore that language may have arisen as a "cheap" means of social grooming, allowing early humans to efficiently maintain social cohesion."

 

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_curve

 

...reveals the exponential drop of frequency of communication between engineers as the distance between them increases.

 

With the fast advancement of internet and sharp drop of telecommunication cost, some wonder the observation of Allen Curve in today's corporate environment. In his recently co-authored book, Allen examined this question and the same still holds true. He says...

 

"We do not keep separate sets of people, some of which we communicate in one medium and some by another. The more often we see someone face-to-face, the more likely it is that we will telephone the person or communicate in some other medium." [p. 58]

===

 

Dunbar's Number relates to the neocortex, so I'm wondering, re: your comments on genetic limits....

 

The large evolutionary pressure on our genes, which results from our evolving diet, also allows for similarly "large" changes in our mental capacities. This is because some of the same genes which affect digestive development are used later in gestation to affect brain development.

 

There is a genetic mechanism, which increasing evolutionary pressures will promote, that targets certain regions of the genome for rapid mutation. This is a unique mechanism for promoting "mutations," because it involves multiplying, deleting, and shuffling existing genes at the genomic level, rather than introducing random mutations at the nucleotide or gene level.

 

This mechanism has been observed (was first discovered) operating with our species, specifically in a region of the chromosomes related to developmental genes associated with digestion (the Second Brain).

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199905/our-second-brain-the-stomach

"...according to Michael Gershon, M.D., author of The Second Brain (HarperCollins, 1999), and a neurobiologist at New York's Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center."

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199905/our-second-brain-the-stomach

 

"The Second Brain" by Gershon

...also....

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Brain-Scientific-Groundbreaking-Understanding/dp/0060182520

 

...But what was the question?

===

 

Oh yea... the limit on what our brains can handle. Social systems allow us to sub-divide and manage various Dunbar networks in our brains, but I wonder if there is a limit to how many networks we can develop, store, and utilize. Some we use daily, while others relate to annual information. Social systems help keep us focused on various short-term and some long-term networks, as appropriate.

 

Also wondering how many networks we can use at one time.... For instance, if we are thinking about all the main countries in the world (~150) and how they relate to each other across time and space, can we then also think about one nation's sociopolitical economic system and how its network of factors (easily ~150) relates to that "global perspectives" network?

 

...hmmmm. I wonder if each word that we learn, then has its own "little Dunbar network" stored in our brains.

===

 

It does seem like differing networks of information, understanding, and relationships (or the lack thereof) affects social cohesion and the emergence/evolution of social institutions.

===

~ ;)

 

p.s.

 

I don't know where I read about this "novel genetic architecture," but I know the video talks about it ...and there are some other sources....

 

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?fID=572&rID=22219

The Changing Human Genome: Implications for Disease and Evolution (1 hr)

...Now: http://www.uwtv.org/video/player.aspx?dwrid=22219

??

 

I did jot down some quotes:

...something about a unique (to only a few higher primates) gene "duplication architecture" especially as related to "hotspots that promote recurrent deletion events."

 

&

...something about a new view of that ~1% difference between us and chimps--along the lines of "but some regions have changed extremely rapidly." ...referring to that 1% --that has "changed extremely rapidly."

 

This unique "duplication architecture" allows for the original copy to function normally while the duplicate gene can mutate wildly (...who cares, as the original is still functioning normally, eh?)!

 

===> or:

 

Google: genetic hotspots novel architecture primates

 

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000840

Refinement of primate copy number variation hotspots identifies candidate genomic regions evolving under positive selection

 

http://genomebiology.com/2011/12/5/R52

Refinement of primate copy number variation hotspots identifies candidate genomic regions evolving under positive selection

 

NATURE Magazine

Primate segmental duplications: crucibles of evolution, diversity and diseaseJeffrey A. Bailey & Evan E. Eichler

 

Abstract

Compared with other mammals, the genomes of humans and other primates show an enrichment of large, interspersed segmental duplications (SDs) with high levels of sequence identity. Recent evidence has begun to shed light on the origin of primate SDs, pointing to a complex interplay of mechanisms and indicating that distinct waves of duplication took place during primate evolution. There is also evidence for a strong association between duplication, genomic instability and large-scale chromosomal rearrangements. Exciting new findings suggest that SDs have not only created novel primate gene families, but might have also influenced current human genic and phenotypic variation on a previously unappreciated scale.

 

&

http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=11602

A Hot Spot of Genetic Instability in Autism

The genomic region identified by Weiss et al. corresponds to 1 of approximately 150 regions of the human genome that are predicted to be "hot spots" for recurrent deletion and duplication.11,12 The presence of large, highly similar duplications flanking the 16p11.2 region predisposes this particular portion of the chromosome to unequal crossing over during meiosis (Figure 1). Consequently, although the parental DNA is normal, the unique sequence between these duplicated sequences becomes microduplicated or microdeleted in offspring.13 The critical genomic segment described by Weiss et al. seems to be identical to a previously described de novo microdeletion in male monozygotic twins with mild mental retardation, aortic-valve abnormalities, and seizure disorder; no evidence of autism spectrum disorder was presented.14 As in other diseases associated with genomic disorders (e.g., the velocardiofacial syndrome and schizophrenia), it is likely that the effect of the 16p11.2 deletion or duplication extends beyond autism and that variability in clinical manifestations depends on differences in genetic background. This theory is consistent with an observation made by Weiss et al. in two families: affected children inherited the 16p11.2 duplication from unaffected parents.

 

Figure 1. A Hot Spot of Genomic Instability Associated with Autism.

Interspersed duplication blocks (12 and 13) on 16p11.2 promote unequal crossing over during meiosis (two of four chromosomes are shown). Gametes are produced that either lack or carry a double dose of the critical interval. Dosage-sensitive differences of genes in the critical interval (A, B, C) probably increase the susceptibility to disease. There are more than 25 genes or transcripts in the critical interval (e.g., DOC2A, QPRT, and TBX6), as well as rapidly evolving genes in the flanking duplications.

 

The short arm of chromosome 16 is exceptional from an evolutionary perspective because it is populated by an excess of duplicated segments that emerged relatively recently during evolution (less than 15 million years ago).15 More than 16 blocks of segmental duplication are interspersed across the chromosome, and rearrangements among these blocks have been associated with various genomic disorders involving mental retardation, multiple congenital abnormalities, and autism. It is interesting that most of the duplicated sequences on chromosome 16 also carry copies of one of the most rapidly evolving gene families in the human species.16 Both the gene family and the genomic architecture are specific to apes and humans, which is consistent with other reports17 that from an evolutionary standpoint, autism may be a relatively "young" disease.

 

RE: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe0708756

This article (10.1056/NEJMe0708756) was published at www.nejm.org on January 9, 2008.

New England Journal of Medicine

===

 

Just think of how lactose tolerance has evolved, as well as... celiac disease/autism connection. There is something about kidney malformations too, along with many digestive conditions, that go along with certain brain developmental problems as a common association; which lends support to this....

 

....Overall idea of certain hotspots within the genome, which can change "extremely rapidly." So don't get too constrained by our relatively primitive definitions regarding how genetics might limit our (especially mental and social) evolution. ...and there are epigenetic effects too....

===

 

So to answer the OP....

 

The neocortex?

 

~ :)

[Rade]

For one thing, I am puzzled by the statement that we "became domesticated some 8000-7000 years ago." The human mainstream developed agriculture and the domestication of other animals by then, but I don't now of any reason why that would lead to genetic change. Our language-bred ideological systems would have seemingly adapted us to fixed territories. Genetically, we would still be small-group primates. Genetic change could not have occurred in a mere few thousand years.

Your OP question was to the question of why primates including humans tend to maintain small group structure even when the opportunity exists based on resource availability to continue to grow. I provided a mechanism based on the limits of the mammal brain to store and process "inter-group" interactions. See also the nice post by Essay.

 

What I was trying to explain with domestication is how it would be possible to maintain the initial small-group genetic dynamics, yet live in a larger unit with many small-groups interacting. So, consider [O] is a small genetic group. The majority of interactions are internal to the group, maintained by genetics. Now, along comes domestication and the situation changes to [O] <-> [O] <-> [O] <->[O] etc. but allow interaction arrows to all possibilities. As you say, we have little reason to expect much genetic change of the inter-group interactions, they are maintained as small-group family and social interactions. However, we now have a new type of dominant interaction that was not present before, the various <-> between small-group interactions. These interactions can lead to new group dynamics at a large scale (new memes can be transmitted rapidly to many individuals), and given enough time and isolation could lead to genetic changes in all the [O] interacting units.

 

You mention that the size of most small-group animals is determined by the ecological territory and its food supply' date=' but that is not really the case. With vast space and abundant food, the group size still does not exceed the usual range. Instead, the groups divide into more groups. This is true of howler and spider monkeys, chimps, human hunting/gathering groups, and many others. Why is that?[/quote'] I was discussing what are the limits to the number of times such small-group division can occur, e.g., 10 small-groups divided vs 10,000. What is the limit to the division cycle ? My claim is that the limit to the division is determined by the carrying capacity of the environment. The question you ask here, I have already addressed (limits of processing information on social interactions by the brain), see also the post by Essay.

 

What goes on in the too-large groups that causes them to break up?

OK' date=' here you ask a different question, and above I provide a mechanism based on limits of carry capacity of the environment.

 

What happens to the world when its ideological systems no longer manage to adequately bond people into their society and the general Secular Humanism-bonded civilization?

I think it would be called war in different forms, such as war between religions, war between social classes, war between large-group, etc. If you read any book on the history of humans over the past 8000 years, it is a documentation of wars. This behavior has a genetic bases that has roots in the small-group hunter gatherer mode of existence.

 

Finally, what makes you think secular humanism is a dominant social meme ? Surveys in America for example constantly reveal that >90% of citizens are not secular humanists. If we want to place blame on any ideology for not adequately bonding people into a large-group society (the one with many interacting [O]) it would be the antithesis of secular humanism ideology.

[charles brough]

...Domestication affects Diet... among many other things....

===But....You seem to be discussing Dunbar's Number.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Allen_curve

 

 

No, I was referring only to the size of hunting gathering group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Common_characteristics

the number ranges from 10 to 100 approximately. Most certainly it is genetic, neocortical and or physicological, but from the social theorist standpoint (mine) it makes sense to refer to it as instinctive. That means, of course, that it can be conditioned by the beliefs (the prevailing ideology) of the group or groups. What I propose is that the prevailing ideologies developed to where they spread among groups to unite them in a way that enabled them to adjust to villages perhaps some 40,000 years ago.

 

And when they developed agriculture, group size needed to increase and ideology adjust to the need and evolved in ways that enabled ever large groups to be bonded into "tribes."

 

The large evolutionary pressure on our genes, which results from our evolving diet, also allows for similarly "large" changes in our mental capacities. This is because some of the same genes which affect digestive development are used later in gestation to affect brain development.

 

There is a genetic mechanism, which increasing evolutionary pressures will promote, that targets certain regions of the genome for rapid mutation. This is a unique mechanism for promoting "mutations," because it involves multiplying, deleting, and shuffling existing genes at the genomic level, rather than introducing random mutations at the nucleotide or gene level.

 

This mechanism has been observed (was first discovered) operating with our species, specifically in a region of the chromosomes related to developmental genes associated with digestion (the Second Brain).

 

Social systems allow us to sub-divide and manage various Dunbar networks in our brains, but I wonder if there is a limit to how many networks we can develop, store, and utilize. Some we use daily, while others relate to annual information. Social systems help keep us focused on various short-term and some long-term networks, as appropriate.

 

Also wondering how many networks we can use at one time.... For instance, if we are thinking about all the main countries in the world (~150) and how they relate to each other across time and space, can we then also think about one nation's sociopolitical economic system and how its network of factors (easily ~150) relates to that "global perspectives" network?

 

It does seem like differing networks of information, understanding, and relationships (or the lack thereof) affects social cohesion and the emergence/evolution of social institutions.

 

Why assume our altered diet cause genetic change when there are still a few hunting/gathering groups and we are still attracted to small groups even in our larger society? Anyway, are you also saying that the herding tribes that augumented early agriculture and ate mostly milk, blood and meat products did not also have the ability to form into large groups? Gengis Khan certainly had large groups!

 

It seems to me the genetic/neurological/physiological trait did not change because it did not need to. We developed ideologies that united groups into large units, and as the nature of our ideological systems evolved to meet the need, we could form ever larger societies: villages, tribes, nations, etc.

 

I don't know where I read about this "novel genetic architecture," but I know the video talks about it ...and there are some other sources....

 

http://www.researchc...D=572&rID=22219

The Changing Human Genome: Implications for Disease and Evolution (1 hr)

...Now: http://www.uwtv.org/...spx?dwrid=22219

 

I did jot down some quotes:

...something about a unique (to only a few higher primates) gene "duplication architecture" especially as related to "hotspots that promote recurrent deletion events."

 

...something about a new view of that ~1% difference between us and chimps--along the lines of "but some regions have changed extremely rapidly." ...referring to that 1% --that has "changed extremely rapidly."

 

This unique "duplication architecture" allows for the original copy to function normally while the duplicate gene can mutate wildly (...who cares, as the original is still functioning normally, eh?)!

 

===> or:

 

Google: genetic hotspots novel architecture primates

 

http://www.plosgenet...al.pgen.1000840

Refinement of primate copy number variation hotspots identifies candidate genomic regions evolving under positive selection

 

http://genomebiology.com/2011/12/5/R52

Refinement of primate copy number variation hotspots identifies candidate genomic regions evolving under positive selection

 

NATURE Magazine

Primate segmental duplications: crucibles of evolution, diversity and diseaseJeffrey A. Bailey & Evan E. Eichler

 

Abstract

Compared with other mammals, the genomes of humans and other primates show an enrichment of large, interspersed segmental duplications (SDs) with high levels of sequence identity. Recent evidence has begun to shed light on the origin of primate SDs, pointing to a complex interplay of mechanisms and indicating that distinct waves of duplication took place during primate evolution. There is also evidence for a strong association between duplication, genomic instability and large-scale chromosomal rearrangements. Exciting new findings suggest that SDs have not only created novel primate gene families, but might have also influenced current human genic and phenotypic variation on a previously unappreciated scale.

 

&

http://www.aspiesfor...d.php?tid=11602

A Hot Spot of Genetic Instability in Autism

 

===

 

Just think of how lactose tolerance has evolved, as well as... celiac disease/autism connection. There is something about kidney malformations too, along with many digestive conditions, that go along with certain brain developmental problems as a common association; which lends support to this....

 

....Overall idea of certain hotspots within the genome, which can change "extremely rapidly." So don't get too constrained by our relatively primitive definitions regarding how genetics might limit our (especially mental and social) evolution. ...and there are epigenetic effects too....

===

 

So to answer the OP....

 

The neocortex?

 

~ :)

 

I don't know what to add here . . . I am anxious to see your response. . .

[fahrquad]

Humans developed as hunter/gatherers and remained in small groups until the development of agriculture and animal husbandry. With the resulting increase in food supply, the population began to grow to its current size of 7.3 billion people and is anticipated to continue to grow to over 10 billion by the turn of the next century. Other primate groups remain hunter/gatherers and the size of the group is dependent on food supply.

[fahrquad]

One additional comment, the other primates are experiencing a population decline due to hunting (Bush-Meat) and loss of habitat from human encroachment.

[Essay]

"...refer to it as instinctive. That means, of course, that it can be conditioned by the beliefs (the prevailing ideology) of the group or groups."

That doesn't seem like a given "of course" to me, but maybe I don't understand what you mean by "conditioned." I'm sure the expression of an instinct is conditional upon circumstances, but I don't see how instinct could be conditioned (modified?) by belief.

 

It doesn't make sense that one of the oldest evolutionary traits would be influenced by the newest emergent phenomenon. But now that I think about it, there is no reason why it wouldn't be modified either; "belief" is at least part of the overall background of circumstances upon which instincts must act.

 

There is certainly a long tradition in considering the juxtaposition of belief and instinct, and how one variouslly "overpowers" the other; but do we know enough about either belief or instinct to be so definitive?

 

Also....

"What I propose is that the prevailing ideologies developed to where they spread among groups to unite them in a way that enabled them to adjust to villages perhaps some 40,000 years ago."

I'm having trouble with this "prevailing ideologies developed" phrase. How and why would an ideology "develop" at all; and why would it develop in a way to spread among groups, or especially to unite groups? I'd think a simple cost/benefit perspective would drive adjustments like you suggest, in spite of ideologies; or even that ideologies would need to adjust (after the fact) in order to accomodate new economic realities. Or are you suggesting a dynamic interaction between the two (and other factors)?

===

 

But about the size of "hunting gathering" groups, my point was that this seems to be another example of group size limited by the Dunbar number, the number of elements in a network of relationships, which is related to neocortex size.

 

Most animals seem to be limited to a single network (of relationships described by Dunbar's number); but humans seem to have developed the capacity to hold a multitude of networks, and the ability to cross-reference those in order to create an imaginary--or otherwise novel--network or set (of relationships described by Dunbar's number) in the brain.

 

That ability to perceive many relationships, across time and space, is what allows for building various social complexities, imho, rather than ideologies; unless maybe those two are the same thing.

===

 

But did villages (permanent settlements?) arise ~40kya, or after agriculture was developed; and of what (and of how many) is a "tribe" comprised? Is there a name such as "clan" for the basic hunt/gath. "group" that you start with?

===

 

Why assume our altered diet cause genetic change when there are still a few hunting/gathering groups and we are still attracted to small groups even in our larger society? Anyway, are you also saying that the herding tribes that augumented early agriculture and ate mostly milk, blood and meat products did not also have the ability to form into large groups? Gengis Khan certainly large groups!

Just because every group doesn't evolve, doesn't mean that many groups would not still evolve. Those small, remaining groups live in places that have not changed in millennia, whereas G. Khan lived in a rapidly changing environment. Khan is a good example because he highlight the differences that "evolve" between farmers and herders--similarly across the globe. The ability to thrive on a unique diet may have conveyed a distinct advantage in a competitive landscape. Did you know that even today, a significant percentage (2-3%) of Asian and European genes can be traced dirctly to G. Khan? I think that was on a PBS show about unraveling the legend of the female "Amazon" warriors.

 

 

It seems to me the genetic/neurological/physiological trait did not change because it did not need to. We developed ideologies that united groups into large units, and as the nature of our ideological systems evolved to meet the need, we could form ever larger societies: villages, tribes, nations, etc.

"....Did not need to?"

What do you mean? Genetic traits don't change because of need, they change in response to changes in the environment (such as diet, shelter, clothing, and care).

 

It seems far-fetched to me that an "ideology" could be developed just to enable some theoretical idea that a larger group could be accomodated with such a suitably "developed" ideology. And if, as you say, any "ideological systems evolved to meet the need," then why would we "form ever larger societies" when the ideological system had finally evolved to meet the need of the present society? Is the right ideology enabling growth, or is the growth driving evolution of new ideologies?

 

But to get back to genetics....

===

 

The 1990's was the "decade of the brain" and they still need to learn more; but I watched the Charlie Rose series where he interviewed some premier researchers in the field, and there were some points and observations made that were consistent with this idea of discrete or dedicated (but also linked) networks in the brain. I don't recall if it was the neocortex or another structure, but the more basic functions such as facial recognition were nearest the back while the more recently acquired abilities like speech are nearer the front--with "reading" being the farthest forward in the brain. These areas also show up in endocasts of fossil skulls, as they evolve through time.

 

It also makes sense, since it is a common strategy in evolution to create multiples of almost anything that works--just in case a new use or enhanced function can be stumbled upon.

 

Domestication obviously "activates" certain mutational hotspots in an animal's genome after only a few generations. Google... breeding foxes in soviet union and evolution of dogs

...to see examples such as the russianfoxfarmstudy:

https://johnwade.ca/attachments/article/359/russianfoxfarmstudy.pdf

 

or wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

The domesticated silver fox (marketed as the Siberian fox) is a domesticated form of the silver morph of the red fox. As a result of selective breeding, the new foxes became not only tamer, but more dog-like as well.

 

The result of over 50 years of experiments in the Soviet Union and Russia, the breeding project was set up in 1959

 

I don't think it should be surprising that after we tamed fire and taught cooking, as well as started living in smokey clothing in permanent shelters with other animals and fermented grains, that our genome would become more open to change; especially change in those particular genes that are developmentally associated with both the "second brain" (digestion/immunity) and the "first brain" (communication/culture).

===

 

But maybe that's just because I see things more from a biochemical/ecological, instead of a sociological, perspective. Though as I emphasized ...to over a 100 sophomores in an Environmental Sociology class last week during a guest lecture... technology can help you stretch the limits that the physical environment puts on civilization, but you can't escape those biogeochemical limits in the long run. You can develop any theory of economics or society (or ideology) that you like; but if you want it to be sustainable in the long run, you've got to understand and account for--including our linkages to it--the whole biogeochemosphere, the physical environment.

 

~ :)

 

 

p.s. And a similar observation ...hot off the presses!

--Naomi Klein, Oct. 6, 2011

"...And this is why I think we need [to view] the economic and ecological crisis as absolutely intertwined, if not the same crisis, that has their roots in unfettered greed and an inability to say, enough, and an inability to understand that there are limits; that there is such a thing as scarcity in the natural world."

 

"We don’t understand the real limits imposed on us by physics and chemistry, but we impose these absolutely false limits, when it comes to economics."

[charles brough]

maybe I don't understand what you mean by "conditioned." I'm sure the expression of an instinct is conditional upon circumstances, but I don't see how instinct could be conditioned (modified?) by belief.

 

It doesn't make sense that one of the oldest evolutionary traits would be influenced by the newest emergent phenomenon. But now that I think about it, there is no reason why it wouldn't be modified either; "belief" is at least part of the overall background of circumstances upon which instincts must act.

 

There is certainly a long tradition in considering the juxtaposition of belief and instinct, and how one variouslly "overpowers" the other; but do we know enough about either belief or instinct to be so definitive?

 

I use the otherwise vague word "condition" to label the influence what the ideologically bonded community considers as the right way each instinct is to be expressed/satisfied. Much of the conditioning comes from the common moral and legal codes. Our secular ideological system operates a money economy in our society, for example, by idealizing the capitalistic system and establishing habits, norms, etc. so we think in terms of "purchases" instead of bartering and we write contracts instead of relying upon our instinctive expectation of a favor being return for favors given. All our social instincts are guided in their expression, but the only one that is activally suppressed is the polygamous nature of the small-primate group. We had to impose monogomy on society for a number of significant reasons which is a big and seperate subject.

 

I'm having trouble with this "prevailing ideologies developed" phrase. How and why would an ideology "develop" at all; and why would it develop in a way to spread among groups, or especially to unite groups? I'd think a simple cost/benefit perspective would drive adjustments like you suggest, in spite of ideologies; or even that ideologies would need to adjust (after the fact) in order to accomodate new economic realities. Or are you suggesting a dynamic interaction between the two (and other factors)?

 

You've got down into the heart of the matter. This is a difficult subject for people to understand and accept. To me, there is no absolute truth in this world. All we "know" is the level of understanding we have about everything and it changes (advances) only by becoming more accurate. Of course, in our daily lives, it is practical to refeWr to "truth" and I do. It is essential that we always try to say "the truth" and be as accurate as we can.

 

As for as understanding the world, it is always wrapped up in our ideology. We in the West function with two main ideologies, Christianity and in addition, our secular ideals which for the most part include science. In other words, most people in the West are influenced by Christian ideals and standards as well as by scientific understanding and secular ideals. So, what is left? Nothing. Our ideology is dual-based and encompasses the whole way we think. It is important to interpret the data in this particular way because it is the way that shows how we manage to function in huge groups even though we are the same small-group primates we evolved into less than 200,000 years ago. This common way of thinking is what bonds us into this large group. As that common world-view and way of thinking divides and weakens, the stress and hostility level rises as it does in all small-group animals whose group grosly exceeded the norm for that species. Thus, one can explain the reason for the rise in stress and hostility. Also, we have clues from all this as to what can be expected in the future.

 

But about the size of "hunting gathering" groups, my point was that this seems to be another example of group size limited by the Dunbar number, the number of elements in a network of relationships, which is related to neocortex size.

 

Most animals seem to be limited to a single network (of relationships described by Dunbar's number); but humans seem to have developed the capacity to hold a multitude of networks, and the ability to cross-reference those in order to create an imaginary--or otherwise novel--network or set (of relationships described by Dunbar's number) in the brain.

 

That ability to perceive many relationships, across time and space, is what allows for building various social complexities, imho, rather than ideologies; unless maybe those two are the same thing.?

 

There seems to be no agreement on how large or small was typical to our hunting/gathering groups. Wikkapedia shows a low of ten up to thirty. Other sources say thirty five up to over a hundred. I don't think it necessary to set a rigid number. We are flexible that way and it can even change. We saw that with us. The US population largely developed from people who had selected themselves out to live more or less by themselves. The settling of the West was largely a fleeing from crowding. The result is we in the US feel more of the stress and hostility than do those living in Japan and Java.

 

I have not studied Dunbar's numbers extensively and you can enlighten me, but I believe they set a limit of some 200 relationships as a mazimum. All else would depend upon the common ideology for our ability to function as nations and societies.

 

But did villages (permanent settlements?) arise ~40kya, or after agriculture was developed; and of what (and of how many) is a "tribe" comprised? Is there a name such as "clan" for the basic hunt/gath. "group" that you start with?

 

The data that far back is of course minimal and open to interpretion. I interpret it this way: the European cave are of that era indicates a hunting based society larger than that of the typical hunting gathering groups---perhaps they lived in something like 200 people settlements. The hunting communties must have incorporated a lot of hunting lore into their ideology and used migrations, etc. to trap whole herds. We could call them "tribes" or "clans." There were many of them in Europe but they all had the same general ideology as indicated by the similarity of their art from cave to cave.

 

but because every group doesn't evolve, doesn't mean that many groups would not still evolve. Those small, remaining groups live in places that have not changed in millennia, whereas G. Khan lived in a rapidly changing environment. Khan is a good example because he highlight the differences that "evolve" between farmers and herders--similarly across the globe. The ability to thrive on a unique diet may have conveyed a distinct advantage in a competitive landscape. Did you know that even today, a significant percentage (2-3Wbhat Asian and European genes can be traced dirctly to G. Khan? I think that was on a PBS show about unraveling the legend of the female "Amazon" warriors.

 

What I see is that groups do no evolve. Their world-view, way of thinking or ideology evolves enabling the group to grow in size or have to decline. A group that moved into a uniquely better environment would grow and divide but still keep the same ideology. When one groups was able to develop a new technology, such as a better spear, it would become part of the ideological lore and its use would spread to the rest of the tribes with the same ideology and their ideology would change to accommodate it. The accommodation might well have been that their gods ordered them to use this better spear and in a certain (the best) way.

 

The 1990's was the "decade of the brain" and they still need to learn more; but I watched the Charlie Rose series where he interviewed some premier researchers in the field, and there were some points and observations made that were consistent with this idea of discrete or dedicated (but also linked) networks in the brain. I don't recall if it was the neocortex or another structure, but the more basic functions such as facial recognition were nearest the back while the more recently acquired abilities like speech are nearer the front--with "reading" being the farthest forward in the brain. These areas also show up in endocasts of fossil skulls, as they evolve through time.

 

It also makes sense, since it is a common strategy in evolution to create multiples of almost anything that works--just in case a new use or enhanced function can be stumbled upon.

 

Domestication obviously "activates" certain mutational hotspots in an animal's genome after only a few generations. Google... breeding foxes in soviet union and evolution of dogs

...to see examples such as the russianfoxfarmstudy:

https://johnwade.ca/...oxfarmstudy.pdf

 

or wikipedia:

 

I don't think it should be surprising that after we tamed fire and taught cooking, as well as started living in smokey clothing in permanent shelters with other animals and fermented grains, that our genome would become more open to change; especially change in those particular genes that are developmentally associated with both the "second brain" (digestion/immunity) and the "first brain" (communication/culture).

===

 

But maybe that's just because I see things more from a biochemical/ecological, instead of a sociological, perspective. Though as I emphasized ...to over a 100 sophomores in an Environmental Sociology class last week during a guest lecture... technology can help you stretch the limits that the physical environment puts on civilization, but you can't escape those biogeochemical limits in the long run. You can develop any theory of economics or society (or ideology) that you like; but if you want it to be sustainable in the long run, you've got to understand and account for--including our linkages to it--the whole biogeochemosphere, the physical environment

~ :) .s. And a similar observation ...hot off the presses!

 

I have not completely thought out the subject of domestication but I suspect we are not quite as fierce as we were 200,000 years ago---even a few centuries a

ago, but we could actually exterminate ourselves now---something we could never do before.

[charles brough]

Do we really live in large grorps?

i would have thought most would be lucky to have a family/social group of more than 30.

 

A "large group" would be any group larger than the small, sub-200 size hunting gathering groups we evolved to live in. That would mean nations, societies of nations, states such as California, etc. are all larger groups.

[charles brough]

Humans developed as hunter/gatherers and remained in small groups until the development of agriculture and animal husbandry. With the resulting increase in food supply, the population began to grow to its current size of 7.3 billion people and is anticipated to continue to grow to over 10 billion by the turn of the next century. Other primate groups remain hunter/gatherers and the size of the group is dependent on food supply

I am reminded of European cave art. That "culture" was spread over a significant part of Europe. The art indicates people were hunting large game. They had to live in larger groups than ten to thirty people. They could trap whole herds of animals with enough people using nets or traps and throwing spears. There was no evidence of any shortage of food. In fact, we seem to have been responsible for hunting down and killing mastadons and mammoths. It would have required more than a small team to do that. In a small h/g group of thirty, there would be only about seven in the male hunting team.

 

And if we evolved through millions of years as small-group hunters and gatherers, what did enable us to adapt to any larger groups? Is there some evidence of genetic change that would enable that? What process would change us into "herd animals."

 

What I observe is that ideologic unites people so well that when the ideology splits into two, the two sections struggle against each other and often war develops. When it splits but tries to maintain itself anyway (as with splitting into only diverse sects), the more unwieldy it feels to us small group minded beings and the more hostility we feel, hostility we then direct against other ideology-bonded groups among us. We are now even experiencing that in our own Congress.

[Qfwfq]

why did you start 5 threads on the same topic?

Well that's easy... because cross posting is against our rules, he has already received warn status and so he just went ahead and did it!

:doh:

[charles brough]

Well that's easy... because cross posting is against our rules, he has already received warn status and so he just went ahead and did it!:doh:

I am not aware of being warned about that, but since you say it is in the rules, you can be sure I won't do it again. :doh: