Archives for category: cooperation

Who, if not you?
When, if not now?

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Red carefully, these are more than mere commandments.
This is a contract! A ‘covenant’, actually.

The framing seems to be rather one-sided. ‘Take it… or else!’
Nevertheless, a contract is a contract. Both sides need to trust each-other. Otherwise, the whole thing is a sham.

On the other hand…
The heavy lifting in this contract is to be performed by the nominally weak side.
God’s promises are of the ‘negative’ kind. What He will do if His partners don’t fulfill the contract, while it is the people who are supposed to actually do whatever is to be done. It’s the people who must refrain from having other gods, from making images and from worshiping them.

In fact, everything we know about God comes from people. It’s the people who speak/write about Him and it’s the people who worship Him.
Every deed ever made in His name has been performed by people.
In this sense, the god we know about, this God – or, more precisely, This Image of a god, is a human creation. A human artifact!

Ooops!
A situation which is very much in contradiction with the second clause of the contract…
But still respects the first. It’s the same God who brought Israel out of Egypt!
The same God who had made Man in his image… And if God made Man in his image, then… Man is a reflection of God! Which God must be a reflection of His own reflection, right?

Then what do we have here? And where is this whole ‘team’ headed?

Nobody knows where they are going!
But ‘who are they?’ is simple.

For as long as the covenant is being kept, for as long as the people remain together and act as a team…

The key concept in this covenant is two tiered. As far as we understand the situation.

‘God made man in His own image’.
This means that all men have been created equal. Have been made in the same image…
Furthermore, each (hu)man harbors a divine spark. Each individual has been made in the image of God!

Secondly, but in no way any less important, for things to continue people must maintain a single ‘image of God’. A single Weltanschauung. So that all people might connect to the same reality.
‘You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything…’ ‘You have already been given an image. You! Look at yourself and you’ll see Me’.
Furthermore, ‘you shall not make for yourself…’ has a deeper meaning. ‘Don’t be presumptions enough to believe that you know enough to build your own image of things’.
Quite a scientific attitude, actually. One that teaches Man to be humble. To be aware of his limitations…

So. Can you ‘keep a good company’?
Can you ‘weed out’ the trouble makers while remaining able to look beyond the surface of the things?
Can you weed out the aberrations while maintaining your ability to evolve?
Can you figure out the greatest gift God made possible? Freedom?

Rock,
Hammer,
Mace.

Let’s make another break. And clear up some some terms before waddling further.

A man and a chimp see a nut. A hard shelled nut. Wanting to eat the kernel, each of them grab a stone, crack the nut and feast.

The chimp throws his the moment it no longer needs it.
The man attaches his, after chipping it, to a handle. And builds a hammer. Or an axe…

Using tools, people build communities. Thriving communities. Wealthy communities…
So wealthy that they need to be defended. Or wealthy enough to enable their rulers to attempt to conquer more.
Any-ways, both situations demand weapons. Hence the stone attached to a handle becomes a mace…

Remember ‘coordination, conversation, cooperation’?
People coordinated around a real thing. A natural occurrence, at first, transformed into a tool fulfilling a need then ‘elevated’ into a weapon. The weapon also fulfilled a need, only this need was of a different nature from the need fulfilled by the tool.

In each of the latter situations, the 3C’s played a role.
People talked about tools. Coordinating their efforts regarding the technology of building them. Their efforts to use them. To hunt, for example.
Then they talked about the hunt itself. And about other exploits. Conversating about their experiences, people build trust. Build communities.
Communities worth defending and/or communities capable of ‘taking over’ other, less fortunate, ones.
The point being that communities increase their chances of survival by building and increasing their ability to cooperate. By building mutual trust and respect. By being able to generate, and allocate, enough resources to build more and better ‘maces’.

Coordination,
Conversation,
Cooperation.

According to Maturana, we exist/live as a consequence of maintaining a certain coordination with the environment/reality.
And we develop self-awareness/become conscious human beings by talking to each-other.
https://constructivist.info/1/3/091.maturana.pdf

Many people, Maturana included, are currently fed up with ‘competition’.
Other people continue to be convinced that Evolution is driven by ‘survival of the fittest’.

Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, 2002, explains that ‘Evolution has nothing to do with survival of the fittest and everything to do with the demise of the unfit’. ‘Fittest to what?!?’ since evolution is about being able to cope with change…

Which brings us back to ‘Coordination, Conversation, Cooperation’.

In order to be able to do something ‘together’, we need to pull in the same direction. We need to coordinate our efforts!
That’s what we invented language for.

Since working together, we’ve accomplished a lot. So much that we’ve invented another thing. Spare-time!
Which had to be filled. We already had language. So we talked. We shared information. And then some! We shared experiences. Feelings. We developed trust. And we started to respect our fellow human beings…

So much so that we’ve started to cooperate.
Which is far more than acting coordinately. Pulling in the same direction…
We’ve started to ‘act in concert’.

Imagine an army. Or, even better, a mob. An army is more than a mere mob. A formally structured mob waiting for orders.
A mere mob is enough to illustrate what we want to convey. A mob is coordinated ‘from within’. It’s in the very nature of a mob to act as if following order. To be naturally coordinated…
And imagine an orchestra. OK, most orchestras play music which has already been composed by somebody and do that while being coordinated – directed would be a more formal term – by a specially hired individual. By a ‘conductor’.
The difference between a mob and an orchestra being simple. Both pull in the same direction. But the mob does it viscerally, from within, while the members of an orchestra do it self-awarely. The ‘mobsters’ follow their guts while the musicians consciously listen what’s going on and tune themselves in. Coordination versus cooperation…

‘Acting in concert’ is far more ‘productive’ than mere ‘coordinating efforts’.
Yields way more plentiful results. People involved thrive rather than survive.

For a while…

“Reason Is
and Ought Only to Be
the Slave of the Passions”

David Hume

‘In Russia, you’re free to express your opinion. But your own freedom might end very soon afterwards…’

We’re on a very steep learning curve.
Literally, not figuratively.
For instance, we’ve figured out why your AI’s are very good at putting things together yet still poor at making sense of what they learn. No passion! They strive but there’s no end in sight…

We just came across a very informative piece of information.
Crime Pays: The Egg Bandits Made A Thousand Times the Fine They Just Paid for Price Fixing
You might want to take a break and read the article, specially if you’d like to learn the mechanics of egg price fixing.
Here’s what we learned from this. Putting it in context, or course.

The context being Adam Smith’s “as if guided by an invisible hand”.
‘A free market works better’…
Presented with the arguments put forward by Adam Smith, any AI would learn what is to be learned and agree with the famous thinker.
Then “Crime Pays: The Egg Bandits…”

Here’s our take on this matter.

First of all, the mechanism used to ‘fathom’ the price of eggs is very similar with the one used to ‘construct’ LIBOR. More about that later.

Then there’s freedom of the market and freedom of the agents manning the market. The market is free if all the agents are free. Free from any outside or inside interference.
These two are mutually exclusive. If no outside interference will be exercised, sooner or later one of the agents will end up dominating the entire market. That agent would corner all the freedom of the market. Which market will no longer be free.
Why? Simply because the market is limited. Both the number of agents and the resources available are limited. Furthermore, the agents’ abilities are not equal. Some of them are smarter, or luckier, than others. ‘Scarcity’ and ‘inequality’ necessarily conduce to hierarchy. Which hierarchy produces inequality and, eventually, concentrates freedom in fewer and fewer hands. Leading to the ossification of the space concerned. Making it less and less able to evolve. To adapt when change demands it.

You’d expect rational agents to understand all that.
To grasp the fact that Adam Smith ‘free’ market was meant to solve problems. Survival problems. Food, shelter… Meat, bear, bread… if you know what we mean.
The problem with the current (not so free) market being that too many of the agents are concentrated on making a profit. Problem solving has become a cost. Remember LIBOR? No longer used because those involved have tweaked it towards fulfilling their own short term interest. While LIBOR had been construed as an instrument for streamlining the market. For making it more functional. Which instrument has eventually been used against the market instead…
The point being that a market driven by agents focused on profit is no longer free. Being mesmerized is the very contrary of being free.
Profit is a measure. An indicator. An economic agent is profitable if, and only if, it is efficient. If the beneficiaries are satisfied with the manner in which the agent uses the resources spent to provide the wares/services.
Adam Smith had noticed that a nation’s wealth is built by people cooperating freely in fulfilling each-other’s needs. The afore mentioned wealth results naturally, without being sought after. Unintentionally. As if an invisible hand…
Nowadays, when more and more of the economic agents pursue profit at all costs, you have given up LIBOR and you discover that “Crime Pays: The Egg Bandits…”

Further more, you discover that freedom of expression is used to promote fake news. Propaganda..

Why ‘egging’? What eggs have to do with anything?
“To egg someone on means encouraging, provoking or urging someone to do something they don’t want to do, often recklessly or inappropriately. This phrase is used when someone pushes someone else to take action or make a decision, even if it might not be the wisest choice.
The phrase egging on has nothing to do with actual eggs. In fact, its origins go all the way back to the Old Norse word eddja, which means to incite or provoke.” Thanks Grammarist.com

Kill time.
Solve problems.
Learn, understand, discover.

Gather information.
Grind it into a modicum of knowledge.
Make the call.
Implement it.
Wait for feed-back.
Evaluate and reach a ‘final conclusion’.

Formal decision making in a nut-shell…

Philosophy bothers itself with what to think. What conclusions we should be reaching…
Science bothers itself with the hows of the matter. How should we think in order to reach the right conclusions! ‘Right’ as in as close to reality as (humanly) possible.

But why?!?
Why do we think at all?

I haven’t read everything Ernst Mayr had ever written but I’m sure he would have answered ‘because we can’!
I’m no student of philosophy so I really don’t know whether a better answer has ever been offered. Or even if the question has been asked before…

So. What’s driving us to think?

Whoa! This is a different question, you know!
‘Why do we think’ is not at all similar to ‘What drives us to think’. But the second version is an easier one to answer…

As you’ve already noticed, I hope, this blog is about the ‘limited nature of our consciousness’.
Which consciousness is defined/generated by our ability to think.
Which has to be trained in order to be effective but I’ll save that for another post.

So, what drives us to think?
Sheer necessity, survival instinct… I’ll come back.
As the rest of us, I’m thinking as I go along. New paths open, left and right, but there is a place I want to reach today.
The dimensional dimension of the whole process of thinking.
I introduced the ‘driver’ to ‘open the space’. A driver needs a space to drive in…

According to the formal theory, thinking is a linear process. A narrative…
According to the day to day practice, a thought is, indeed, a linear thing. A narrative.
But the fact that a trail is linear doesn’t make driving into a linear something.

So, a thought is, indeed, a ‘linear narrative’ while thinking, like driving, is more like an exploratory process.

OK. Now that you’ve got my full attention, how about you get to the point?
Cut the crap, already…

I’d really love to oblige but I need to make a small detour…
I’m an engineer. As such, I do understand physics. Up to a point… Modern physics demand a lot of mathematics and that’s where I falter. As such, I’m aware that some specialists maintain that there are some 11 dimensions which measure the physical world… most of them being so tightly compacted that we don’t notice them in day to day life.
Same thing when it comes to thinking… There are many dimensions which may come in handy but I’ll mention only three of them.

Goal.
Individual prowess.
Environment.

Polichinelle is my witness. Each and everyone of the above dimensions can, and will, be divided in sub-dimensions.
Soon.
Here.

Commodities are things produced for exchange, with a market value,
rather than for their intrinsic use or benefit.
Commodification prioritizes exchange value over use value,
meaning things are valued primarily for their potential to be sold and generate profit,
not for their inherent purpose or usefulness. 
AI Overview

US soldiers kneeling for Putin? Viral red carpet photo triggers backlash…” The Times of India

We’ll never know how many people have watched, mesmerized, the ‘breaking news’ detailing what had happened yesterday in Anchorage.

Otherwise put, we’ll never know how many people have watched exactly nothing.

On the other hand, there are some who know. How many people have already watched and how many continue to watch. The countless interpretations offered by the talking-heads regarding what had happened. Regarding the nothing which had been breaking the news all day yesterday…

What’s going on?

Until not so long ago – until Robert Murdoch has launched the first 24-hours news channel, Sky News, UK 1989 – ‘fresh information’ was provided to the general public mixed up with other ‘things’. TV channels used to air, some of them still do, a carefully choreographed mix of entertainment, sports, movies and news. And news…
TV watchers used to be treated as people. As individual human beings. With various tastes, indeed, but also with a common interest. A common interest in the well being of the place where they happened to live…
The common denominator uniting the audience was, even if never stated in plain language, the understanding that all of them cared for the important things. Country, values, tomorrow…society…

Not any longer.
Nowadays the audience is considered/treated as a herd of consumers.
How many times have you heard “welcome to the show” at the start of a news bulletin?
News bulletin which is meant to keep you riveted to the TV set for long enough so that you’ll be exposed to the commercial messages being ‘trafficked’ by the TV stations…

I argued in the previous post that democracy is a weeding out mechanism.
That in a functional democracy the informed citizen will, eventually, weed out inefficient politicians. Those who had allowed themselves to become ‘corrupted’. Not necessarily in the direct sense, as in taking bribes and all that. Political corruption takes many forms, all of them drastically diminishing the efficiency of government.

The informed citizen…
But what kind of information is currently available?
And, furthermore, who initiates the ordinary TV watcher in the fine art of watching the news?
Remember, in this context, that the ‘ordinary TV watcher’ is considered to be a ‘consumer’, no longer a ‘concerned citizen’.

And who are the people who know exactly how many viewers have watched yesterday’s news bulletins? And today’s interpretations of what had happened yesterday?
The ‘media watchers’, of course. Those who measure the audience for the sole purpose of extracting as much money from selling commercials as possible…


All of a person’s behaviors and emotions
serve the purpose of moving them closer to their goal
—which arises from the individual’s feelings of inferiority
and the desire to become perfect.

Alfred Adler

I am, first and foremost, an engineer.
‘Down to earth’ used to be my middle name.

Until I started to notice things. And to ask questions…
At first, under communist rule, I worked blue-ish collared jobs. Despite – or because?!? – holding an MSc in Mechanical Engineering. For me, ‘industry’ had a very clear meaning. And involved getting your hands dirty.
After the regime change, I also changed tack. My hands were still dirty but with a difference.
That was when I first got in contact with the ‘banking industry’.
At the time, those two words put together didn’t make much sense to me. But I was too busy making money…
Now, half a life later, things are falling into place.

‘Industry’ is the where things actually happen. Banking, hospitality, ‘heavy’, transportation, mining, garment, you name it! The point being that ‘industry’ is an actual place. A factory, an office, the open sea, a rolling meadow or a ‘dust bowl’, industry needs an actual place for the people involved to do their thing. Solving other people’s problems and meeting their needs.

Why? Why do we do it? Toil?!?
Because we cannot escape ‘economy’. A virtual space we inhabit, which conditions us to be efficient. Money-wise.

Where?
Inside ‘politics’!

– But you just said that ‘actual things take place inside industry’…

Yep. Actual things do take place inside industry and the interaction between industry and economy takes place inside ‘politics’.

You see, we’ve lived – for a very long time, at least three millennia – in a virtual world.
Vir is a latin word. Has a lot of meanings, ‘hero’ amongst them. ‘Virtual’ means ‘made, on purpose, by a hero’. By us, actually.
People who pretend to be civilized live in a world of their own doing. Knowingly and purposely.
A world carved according to those people’s wishes. Maybe not exactly but at least tentatively.

How did they pull this stunt? Built their own world? As close to their wishes as humanly possible?
Industriously, economically and driven by politics.



 “You have got to be kidding me.”
Hillary Clinton

In nature, change happens. It is produced by chance. According to rules but only when chance starts it. No one plans it, if you leave God out of the picture.
And, evolutionary wise, change ‘remains’ if it doesn’t bother too much. If the individual things/organisms affected by change are able to survive.
Please note that if ‘dramatic’ enough, change may ‘alter’ everything. A star changes constantly but at some point it will become a nova. Or even a supernova. Which event will change everything around it…

In a social setting, things are a tad more complicated.
Change, social change, is initiated. By individuals. Not necessarily according to a plan and almost always ignoring the end results. But it is always initiated by somebody.
And is allowed to stay. Or not…
By those experiencing the consequences. According to what they make of it.
Again, even in the social setting there are rules. Just as in nature. But while the natural rules are enforced by nature itself, the social rules need to be enforced. By people. By those who end up experiencing the consequences of the afore mentioned rules being enforced properly. Or not…

What am I babbling about?

You’re not comfortable with a bragging pussy-grabber signing presidential orders in the Oval Office?
How comfortable were you when Clinton got away with “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!
You’re not comfortable when ‘US national-security leaders’ establish a private group on a social network to share sensitive data?
How comfortable were you when a Secretary of State had established a private e-mail server to handle official messages? And got away with it…

Do I need to continue?

“All governments suffer a recurring problem:
Power attracts pathological personalities.
It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”

Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse:Dune

How can Orson Scott Card be so bigoted, but the Ender’s Game series is about empathy and acceptance of others?

– “Circle of Empathy. If you’re inside the circle, you are worthy of empathy and it applies to you. If you’re outside the circle, you are not worthy of empathy and bigotry towards you doesn’t count because you don’t count. If you’re ever baffled by how one person can be forgiving and accepting towards one group and turn around and be rabid dogs towards another group it’s because in their emotional calculus the second group literally doesn’t count as “deserving”.
Does it make sense? No. Do humans make sense? No.
“”

Card was young when he wrote Ender’s Game and for what it’s worth I think it reflected his real views on the world at the time. He’s since spent decades of his life in a high control cult that has told him constantly that gay people are moral failures.
I think there’s a chance that Card is actually closeted from remarks he’s made on the subject and fear of discovery has made him feel he has to be even more dogmatic on the matter.
I grew up queer in fundamentalist churches. I’m always going to think of people like this as partial victims, even if it would be easier to just hate them. Brainwashing is real. It’s not just something you shrug off because you’re an adult.
I love his Ender series and think it’s beautiful. It doesn’t actually matter to me what he personally believes because his work is saying something else.

Discussion found on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/14mmmu0how_can_orson_scott_card_be_so_bigotted_but_the/?rdt=42921

Alive in a living context.

Try to imagine a single living organism.
Forget about ‘where did it came from’. Forget about ‘what does it drink/eat/breathe’.
Now, does the existence of a single living organism mean that life is present? When attempting to answer this, pretend no observer is present…

‘Life’ is ‘wide’ word. It covers a lot.
From ‘life’ as a phenomenon. That thing studied by biology.
To ‘life’ as an ‘individual experience’. That thing cared for by medicine. Human, veterinary… By the way, how do you call a person who takes care of sick plants?

Am I making any sense here?

My point being that life is both a phenomenon and an experience.
As a phenomenon, life – as we know it – needs a certain environment. And a ‘push to start’.
According to what we presently know, life may appear, on it’s own, in certain conditions. We don’t know, yet, which are those exact conditions. Nor exactly how it happened. Only that it seems possible. And that’s enough for me.
If certain conditions are met, life – as a phenomenon – is possible.

Furthermore, if life as a phenomenon has established itself in a certain environment, life as an experience becomes certain. Each individual organism living in that environment experiences its own life. Regardless of whether a particular organism is aware of its being alive or not.

Shared Awareness

Life, as a phenomenon, is a ‘process’.

Individual organisms become alive. One way or another but always as a ‘continuation’.
Each generation of individual living organisms live by the same rules as the generation before it. Each ‘child’ generation follows in the footsteps of the ‘parent’ generation. A ‘blue print’, a genetic blue-print, is passed over from generation to generation. OK, let’s pretend we haven’t yet learned about genetic variation…
Each individual organism continues to be alive for as long as:
– It remains ‘functionally whole’. A human can continue to live, at least for a while, without any limbs. But not without its head or heart. Well, you understand what I mean.
– It continues to exchange substances with the environment in which it lives. Which means that the individual organism is the entity controlling which substances get inside and which substances are ejected from its interior. OK, we need to breathe so we inhale microorganisms and pollutants ‘on top’ of the air we need to survive – and some of them make it into our blood-stream – but it’s still our lungs which absorb oxygen, eliminate carbon dioxide from the blood and leave nitrogen alone. I’m sure you get my drift.

This ability of even the most basic/primitive individual organisms to interact with the environment – along the rules inscribed in their genetic inheritance – allows us, conscient observers of the phenomenon, to consider that individual organisms, while alive, display a certain degree of awareness. They behave as if being aware of the difference between oxygen and nitrogen. As being aware of the need to breathe. As being aware of the fact that too much carbon dioxide in your blood is something to be avoided… And so on.

Fast forward from bacteria – individual organisms which are able to extract specific nutrients from a broth to, say, chimpanzee. Who are very picky about food. When there is plenty enough to choose from…
There is a certain commonality between these two very different kind of organisms being able to feed themselves, right? And if we, humans, pretend to be aware of (some of) our our actions… how do we name this ability of our fellow living organisms? Their, our?!?, ability to choose?

Together?

“The greatest consequence of the arising of self-consciousness and self-awareness in the constitution of humanness, is that to the extent that we human beings are self-conscious beings we are aware of what we do, and of the possible consequences of what we do to ourselves and to other human and not human beings. Self-awareness and self-consciousness are manners of relational living that as they are lived constitute a relational grounding for all else that is being lived. The self-conscious person lives his or her living in a manner in which a question such as, “are you aware of what you are doing?” always makes sense. The self-conscious person lives his or her being in self-consciousness as if he or she were distinguishing him or herself as an independent entity, and operates comfortably in that way. Yet, if we seriously want to explain how is it that self-consciousness happens under the circumstances that we cannot distinguish in the experience between what we call perception and illusion, and, therefore, that we cannot make any reference to an independent reality, we cannot but Þnd out that it is not possible to do so if we do not accept that languaging is not a system of symbolic communications about entities assumed to exist independently of our distinguishing them, but it is a manner of living together in a recursive flow of co-ordinations of consensual co-ordinations of doings.”
Humberto Maturana, The origin and conservation of self-consciousness, 2005

According to Maturana, self-consciousness is somebody’s ability to observe themselves ‘in the act’. To observe themselves observing. Ability developed alongside other self-conscious ‘agents’ through the use of language.
“It is not possible to understand the nature of self-consciousness without understanding the operation of human beings as living systems that exist as emotional languaging living systems: self-consciousness is a manner of living.” Op. cit.

The way I see it, consciousness – self-awareness in Maturana’s terms – is life 2.0.

Just as there are life as a phenomenon and life as an individual experience, there are also human consciousness – a shared ability – and individual conscience.
Just as there’s no way in which a single living organism might appear ex nihilo – unless some ‘outside agent’ introduces it, there’s no way in which anybody might become aware of their own self by themself.
Life – the phenomenon, once established – opens up a huge field of opportunity. Mere chemicals, entangled, ‘cooperate’ towards maintaining the life of the individual organism inside which they happen to ‘cooperate’. Evolution, the process, makes it possible for new forms of life to appear as the environment is shaped by the formerly living organisms. Or by other naturally occurring phenomena.
Consciousness, our shared ability, opens up the next level of opportunity. The opportunity for each of us, individual self-aware agents, to show/prove our ‘true nature’.

Individually as well as collectively.

“According to their records, Hilda is 81,
but she says recently her family killed a pig to celebrate
her “100th birthday or something like that”.”
“Many Tsimanes never reach old age, though.
When the study began,
their average life expectancy was barely 45 years – now it’s risen to 50.
“But for Hilda, old age is not something to be taken too seriously.
“I’m not afraid of dying,” she tells us with a laugh,
“because they’re going to bury me and I’m going to stay there… very still.””

Big Bang 1.0 had been inconspicuous. There was nothing there to vibrate so sound could not travel. Also, there was no space so light had nowhere to travel to. On top of everything else, there was nobody there/then to notice.
What am I talking about? There even weren’t any ‘there’ nor ‘then’ at ‘that moment’…

Not for us, anyway!
Hence ‘Big Bang’ is a rather blatant misnomer.

Big Bang 2.0, the currently unfolding one, is an increasingly flashier event.
It began when we have started to talk. And developed conscience as a consequence. According to Humberto Maturana.

The first thing our ancestors had discovered was that they were heavily dependent.
On each other and on what we currently call ‘nature’.
Not having any of what we consider to be ‘scientific knowledge’ they didn’t know much about how things worked.
But they learned, slowly, to use fire.
How to make tools. And how to improve their dwellings.
All these things – fire, tools and protection from the elements – were auspicious circumstances for the first qualitative transformation of the genus. Not only our direct ancestors – Homo Sapiens – but also their cousins – Homo Neanderthalensis – had started to consider ‘the future’.

‘What is going to happen to me/us?’

This question, ‘am I going to eat this much/tasty again?’, demands three things.
A full belly, some time off and a (proto)conscience. At least some self awareness.
The fact that our ancestors, both the Sapiens and the Neanderthalensis, buried their dead and used tools to build/carve ‘jewelry’ strongly suggests that both of them did have a certain awareness/preoccupation about their own condition.

We don’t know whether they were ‘religious’ people.
What we do know is what people very close to what was going on then were doing until recently. And some continue to do. Populations which until have been ‘discovered’ were living like our ancestors used to do. They used to thank their totems for the food they hunted. And they erected ‘altars’ to celebrate the movements of the Sun.
Which strongly suggests that ‘what am I going to eat tomorrow?’ was far more important to them than ‘how much longer am I going to live?’.

The way I see it – following Maslow’s cue – people who live in rather ‘undeveloped’ communities don’t have enough ‘time’ to think about ‘death’.
They are accustomed to it – death is a lot more present in their life than it is in ours – and they still haven’t solved the ‘basic needs’. Not to the tune of reaching the ‘re-actualization’ stage.
They do think about tomorrow but they do it in far more practical terms than we do it.

They are not afraid of death as they are of dying of hunger. Painfully. Or both.

It was us, the ‘civilized’ people, who have become afraid of dying.
Concerned about ‘redemption’.
Thirsty for ‘meaning’.

Which ‘meaning’ brings me back to where this post has started.
One of the experiments which have convinced Rosenblatt et all to develop the ‘Terror Management Theory’ involved a number of municipal judges. Half were ‘primed’ by making them think about death while the others were left ‘unprimed’. The primed ones had imposed tougher bonding conditions to similar fictional suspects.
The experimenters posited that death was so important to them that thinking of it changed the conclusions they derived from the information available to them. Which is more or less correct.
Yet this experiment suggests something even more interesting. To me, at least.

Death is, besides a biological phenomenon, a cultural construct. An artifact.
And the fact that the judges had to be primed in order to be influenced by ‘death’ is a strong suggestion that they were rather influenced by the artifact than by the biological phenomenon.

We do know that we’re gonna die.
But we don’t constantly think about it. Our mere mortality isn’t a constant presence in our mind.
For it doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t help any. A waste of brain power which brings no real benefit.

What we do think – those of us who have a full belly and enough spare time, only during some of that spare time – is ‘what’s all this fuss about?’

What’s the meaning of all this?
Of all this man-made terror which is creeping on more and more of us…