Empathy may be bad for the health

[Timsup2nothin]

Seriously now, i dont think most anthopologists today believe that hunter gathers were constantly working lest they starve....in fact, many if not most think they worked far fewer hours than modern humans.

Most anthropologists should go give that a try.

 

[Lexicus]

Most anthropologists should go give that a try.

http://www.rewild.info/in-depth/leisure.html

The reports of “lazy” hunter-gatherers from around the world fits in with racist, colonialist notions, but the existence of the stereotype seems to lend credence to the idea that agricultural Europeans had grown accustomed to a much more marginal way of life that required more time, energy, and effort to sustain than most hunter-gatherers would reasonably expect. Those who would seem to have the clearest point of view to compare the two, the hunter-gatherers urged to adopt agriculture themselves, consistently refuse to do so, again and again responding that they do not want to live such a life of toil.

 

[Traitorfish]

The trick with hunter-gatherers is that they simultaneously lived pretty relaxed lives, and about two days from starvation. The key point is accumulation: hunter-gatherers didn't have a way to store or transport food in significant quantities, or much of anything else either. They didn't work much harder than they had to because there wasn't much point, but they had to keep at it; a good hunt keeps you comfortably fed for a couple of days, but then the meat spoiled and you had to start all over again.

Why?...why are women more likely to be captives and men harder to integrate??

Some combination of pride and testosterone, I suppose, on both sides. War was a masculine business, and it's always been hard to convince people who were lately slaughtering each other that they're all friends now. Women tended to keep at arm's length from conflict, so reconciliation becomes easier.

 

[Berzerker]

I wonder when jerky was invented, but I imagine even farmers had to hunt and gather too

 

[bernie14]

The trick with hunter-gatherers is that they simultaneously lived pretty relaxed lives, and about two days from starvation. The key point is accumulation: hunter-gatherers didn't have a way to store or transport food in significant quantities, or much of anything else either. They didn't work much harder than they had to because there wasn't much point, but they had to keep at it; a good hunt keeps you comfortably fed for a couple of days, but then the meat spoiled and you had to start all over again.


Some combination of pride and testosterone, I suppose, on both sides. War was a masculine business, and it's always been hard to convince people who were lately slaughtering each other that they're all friends now. Women tended to keep at arm's length from conflict, so reconciliation becomes easier.

yeah, i'm pretty sure that early homo sapiens were as cognitively capable as modern humans but just lacked the technology....if they COULD have accumulated, they would have (and did go on to*)...pride and testosterone (for males at least) seem to be part of the evolutionary advantage that got them/us to be so successful as a species.

in regards to your last sentences, is there a reason you used past tense?

*i apologize in advance if this is bad grammar

 

[demiurgenext]

Empathy seems to have a very natural selection bias - it starts with nurturing the young, and any group that does so more successfully is more likely to pass on their genes.

If the empathetic offspring survive long enough to procreate themselves, even if empathy ends up killing them (and I question that hypothesis) then that's a net win for the spamming of that gene.

Add that to the fact that many sociologists think that the mammalian nurturing instinct was what lead to larger group empathy, then you have another win, as any group which takes care of its own once again is more likely to pass on their genes.

And of course its not limited to humans, or even primates. Whales are known to protect seals from orca attacks, for example.

I think empathy may lead to increased suffering, but that's different than being an evolutionary disadvantage. Suffering has nothing to do with passing on your genes. Unless you are an emo high school kid.

 

[Ryika]

Empathy seems to have a very natural selection bias - it starts with nurturing the young, and any group that does so more successfully is more likely to pass on their genes.

If the empathetic offspring survive long enough to procreate themselves, even if empathy ends up killing them (and I question that hypothesis) then that's a net win for the spamming of that gene.

Add that to the fact that many sociologists think that the mammalian nurturing instinct was what lead to larger group empathy, then you have another win, as any group which takes care of its own once again is more likely to pass on their genes.

That's a great summary of what I've been trying to say.

I think empathy may lead to increased suffering, but that's different than being an evolutionary disadvantage. Suffering has nothing to do with passing on your genes. Unless you are an emo high school kid.

That's an important note, too, and it does just show how important it is to be aware that our natural behavior is not ideal for the individual to live a good life, because "a life without suffering" for the individual or even the group as a whole is not and was never a "goal" of evolution. As theorized in the article, it may very well be a terrible idea to always use empathy in the sense of "How would I feel if I were in that situation?", when you could also just use the "intellectual version" of empathy that allows you to understand what a person is going through but also allows you to keep the distance, to not make it a personal issue that will cause great emotional distress.

 

[bernie14]

I know we are trying to keep things relatively understandable but I think it is necessary to remember that "empathy" is probably not controlled by one gene....it is likely a multifactorial trait with many genes affecting the potential for empathy....the reason that I say potential is that I don 't think you are just born with empathy. you are born with a certain potential that is acted on by the environment...like a piano virtuso does not come out of the womb playing mozart...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

...like a piano virtuso does not come out of the womb playing mozart...

Not that it is relevant, but are you certain about that?

 

[bernie14]

Not that it is relevant, but are you certain about that?

well, they need a piano, they need to practice, a little encouragement would help too

 

[Berzerker]

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-social-ties-animals-longer.html
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-big-mama-bonobos-younger-females.html#nRlv

'empathetic' mama gets her sons laid

 

[mrt144]

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-social-ties-animals-longer.html
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-big-mama-bonobos-younger-females.html#nRlv

'empathetic' mama gets her sons laid

We gotta be more like bonobos, for real.

 

[Berzerker]

indeed, kinda strange how we seem so much more violent

 

[mrt144]

indeed, kinda strange how we seem so much more violent

We're more like chimps much to our detriment.

Someone once said:

Bonobos order society through sex.
Chimps order sex through society.

 

[bernie14]

aren't the bonobos an endangered species?.. in any case, I find those types of articles a little silly...."well, if humans could just grow wings, well, then we would be able to fly..." either a good amount of DNA manipulation OR education/indoctrination would be required and I don't think we have mastered either to the point of significantly changing human nature

 

[Ryika]

If only we weren't so prude. There wouldn't be any wars if we were naked and on top of each other all the time.

Although... nah, people are gross.

 

[mrt144]

aren't the bonobos an endangered species?.. in any case, I find those types of articles a little silly...."well, if humans could just grow wings, well, then we would be able to fly..." either a good amount of DNA manipulation OR education/indoctrination would be required and I don't think we have mastered either to the point of significantly changing human nature

Humanity has a way of endangering other species as a fundamental part of our existence.

 

[mrt144]

If only we weren't so prude. There wouldn't be any wars if we were naked and on top of each other all the time.

Although... nah, people are gross.

It works for the people willing to make the leap.

 

[bernie14]

Humanity has a way of endangering other species as a fundamental part of our existence.

, the same quality that will either allow us to colonize space or destroy ourselves....just not the quality that would have us sitting on our butts in the dirt diddling each other (although that is sorta what we are doing here on this site, no?). Also, some people would greatly object to how you defined "humanity" right there (see the punching nazis thread).

 

[Lexicus]

We're more like chimps much to our detriment.

Genetically speaking, this isn't actually true afaik.