Human, the Social Animal - Well-presented Harvard-Study on the Hadza
Ever wondered why so many people are investing lots of hours into social media such as Facebook, Twitter or Blogs, vying for some more "friends", "followers", comments or clicks?
It's long been assumed that the reason is our evolutionary history. Whether we are studying obtaining food, organizing security, labour or - the feature most distinguishing us from other primates - cooperative child care, our species learned to rely on social cooperation for successful survival and reproduction. In fact, Charles Darwin dubbed "Man" as a "Social Animal" - although he was not yet aware i.e. of the importance of cooperative childcare. Now, a new Harvard-study by Coren Apicella et al. explored social networks among the contemporary hunters and gatherers of the African Hadza - and found them to resemble those we are building in "modern" ways, too.
And as a special feature, the colleagues not only featured the results on print, but also with a well-done video-presentation. Enjoy!
The paper appeared in Nature:
Apicella, C., Marlowe, F., Fowler, H., Christakis, N. (2012): Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. In: Nature 481/2012, p. 497 - 502
* (Extended) German blogpost here
Printview
I am no expert in this field, but I understand that social cohesion among the Hadza is good, despite minimal religious practice. Perhaps their egalitarian way of life obviates the need for common religious beliefs/ practices in achieving cohesion? There have been several attempts to introduce Christianity to the Hadza over the years with no success.
Yes, that's the point made by von Hayek and others: Small groups may function via face-to-face-contacts and reputation building, with religious practices offering some boons. But as soon as populations and hierarchies start to rise, religion(s) are needed to bridge social as well as cultural gaps for new modes of cooperation(s). For the same reason, periods of rapid changes and crises are regularly accompanied by religious dynamics, whereas times of comfort and stability tend to go with higher levels of secularization.
This would make complete sense if the religious could agree on one particular religion Michael. Despite my own secular convictions, I would then have to agree that religion performs a very useful social function despite my own assessment of its delusional nature.
But wishing will not make it so. The various religions produce some good, cohesive effects within-group. However, very strong between-religion schisms and hatreds create serious anti-cohesive effects; quite often including war.
A much more enlightened approach to social cohesion would be the development/ general acceptance of a humanistic code of moral principles that all people of good intent could subscribe to.
Well, just do it. As to now, we found not a single population combining "the development/ general acceptance of a humanistic code of moral principles" with a sustainable demography (i.e. 2.1 children per women for at least a century). I'd be glad if we could name one.
The lack of a sustainable demography that you have found in relatively secular societies says nothing about their cohesion, their egalitarian nature or the level of contentment in such societies.
As I have pointed out before, there is a need, in fact, to slow the exponential growth of the world population. I suggest that we need to focus on improving the general quality of life rather than applauding/ encouraging population growth for its own sake.
Take a bit of perspective on this situation. The communities in discussion are typically less than 30 adults (up to about 100 total individuals) and the period of stability for these is communities is months, then folks move to other bands – very fluid. Compare to our ‘nearest relatives’ the chimps: Stable troops of up to 200 or 250 individuals. Any individual will live their life in one or two troops. While these humans show notable levels of altruism and mutual support, chimps do a far better job of forming stable communities. These humans appear to really need to get away from one another after short periods of close contact.
I am not applauding population growth (which is rapidly grinding to a halt within this century, after all) nor evolutionary fitness, I am simply stating an empirical observation: As to yet, we don't have any evidence about intergenerationally sustainable, non-religious human populations within all of known human history (featuring many non-religious groups as early as ancient Greece or India). Of course, they might evolve, but if you proclaim humanism as the best model for our metaphysical future as human beings, you should just check the empirical facts.
You say " -- but if you proclaim humanism as the best model for our metaphysical future as human beings, you should just check the empirical facts."
No need to check the facts Michael. As I have said, I accept the empirical facts relating to differential demography between relatively religious and relatively secular societies. What I don't accept is that these facts have any bearing at all on 'the best model for our metaphysical future as human beings'. They are simply irrelevant to social cohesion/ contentment; which is the subject in hand. Do you not agree?
I do agree that empirical observations and metaphysical interpretations are not to be confused. So I'd prefer empirical studies and debates over musings about humanistic or religious claims. Time will decide, as it did throughout thousands of generations.
Yes, I think we agree about that Michael.
Your own empirical work in this area enables us to state with some confidence the demographic/ religiosity effect that we have referred to. However,in my experience, good/interesting scientific results can sometimes be followed by less than scientific conclusions drawn from those results.
In this particular case, it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that the fecundity of religious groups has a positive impact on social cohesion/ contentment or any other meaningful and desirable metaphysical characteristic of those societies.
Although demographic/Darwinian success is usually a relevant measure of 'success' in nature, I suggest that it is not a measure of success for Homo sapiens at the present time. Currently we need to improve quality rather than increase quantity.
While I agree with your quality of life imperative, you are misreading Michael’s statement. While his particular field of interest is the birthrate phenomenon, his assertion: ‘we don't have any evidence of intergenerationally sustainable, non-religious human populations within all of known human history’ is stating a conclusion that spans anthropology. Though few want to notice, human communities lacking religion are demonstrated (to date at least) non-viable. They have been extinct 30,000 years. I wrote about the phenomenon for Mike a year ago:
http://www.scilogs.eu/...-blessing-of-civilization
They may show up periodically, but they fail (within a generation or three).
You write "Though few want to notice, human communities lacking religion are demonstrated (to date at least) non-viable."
An interesting assertion Alan. Are you able to give examples of secular communities that have failed on account of their lack of religion please?
Michael has given many examples from Israel through the US. The real answer is every last one. That is pretty much what extinct means. There is no archeological record of any human community absent religion for 30,000 years. There are many historical examples of breakaway communities from Greece, Rome, Europe and US of breakaway communities, all short lived. For 2.5 million years, no one had religion. Religion was introduced and those groups expanded and prospered while the groups without lost habitat until disappearing. Classic evolutionary stuff.
If I might clarify my response in the interests of a more productive exchange – Why a community fails is irrelevant. Communities fail for all diverse reasons, rarely ever agreed upon. Many things have to be ‘right’ for success to happen. What is shown by the evidence of 50,000 years is that a community needs religion, along with everything else, to compete successfully. No one is claiming that religion alone is enough. For another review of the ‘Religious demography does it’ see David Goldman’s ‘Why Civilizations Fail’. Personally, I don’t fully agree – I think there is a lot more than demography in play.
Thanks Alan.
I take your point that, when a community fails, it is difficult to pin down with any precision the cause of its downfall.
I also accept the key role that has been played by common religious belief in the maintenance of cohesion during the relatively early stages of community development. However, I suggest that, in due course, enlightenment can erode the 'scaffolding' provided by common religion without damaging cohesion. In due course, the community is able to flourish with an ever reducing belief in the super-empirical.
The Scandinavian countries are current examples of waning religion and the simultaneous waxing of cohesion/ contentment in the community.
It is also possible that, at some future time, a common philosophy of life, in particular a non-religious, humanistic philosophy, could be just as effective as religion in fostering cohesion in developing societies.
(cont'd)
For a Humanist Philosophy to succeed in this way I suggest that it would need to begin with a 'view of life and morality' scripture.
Surely Charles Darwin's beautiful words would be included:-
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species.
Tom Rees at EpiphenomenA (Michael has a link in under ‘Blogroll’) has been looking at similar ‘secular substitutes’. Goldman (noted above) sees it as an issue of spirit (as in will and enthusiasm) and suggests only half jokingly that Europe and Japan are ‘committing suicide by vacation’. They have lost interest in the future and are determined to spend all their advantage, their banked capital on a well funded, leisurely today – unwilling to take on the demands of (enough) children. Time will tell, but I too doubt that it is birthrate that will be the deciding factor.
Thank you so much for your sound discussion! And a happy Darwin's Day! :-)
Thanks Michael! Hope you enjoyed the day. I' m writing this from a health-spa! I'll be here for two weeks trying to get back into a fitness regime.
No.
Anthropology 101:
Tribes in Africa, Amazonian rain forest... do not show us how things were in the past!
They show us how those tribes live today.
Did our ancestors welcomed TV crews, saw helicopters, discussed with scholars from Harvard?
These tribes do not live today as their ancestors did 2000 years ago. They evolved as well, they are not humans kept in amber.
I do agree. Any humans living today are no "fossils", but human beings with the same chain of successful ancestors as any other. Nevertheless, contemporary hunters and gatherers are of tremendous importance in exploring human creativity and culture present and (to some extent) past.