I just watched the recent video from Stephen Milo on human life 1 million years ago. He mentions cannibalism evidence across multiple events. That has me thinking about morality in isolated groups and how it might have evolved or could evolve differently.
This is the paper reference for Atapuerca – human cannibalism 1 million years ago
This is Stephen Milo’s upload to YT and relevant time stamp for the article:
I’m curious about how human morality evolves in isolation before external influences cause an averaging effect. Do the rough edges get knocked off in a predictable fashion, taming the most eccentric behaviors over time until we reach peaceful cohabitation, or do we simply partition our animalistic stupidity and become far worse in the duality of civility and the barbarism of a primitive sub-sentient species with War?
Are you judging morality because of cannibalism?
“The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
Curiosity about the evolution of morality is not the same as judgement of that morality.
Also, they are dead and wouldn’t be affected by any judgements today anyways.
I’m hanging cannibalism on the end of extreme, but intending on the broader scope of most extreme behaviors. It is easier to approach than the sexual and predatory counterparts.
Like if there is no potential “greater” social authority likely to interfere, is there a population density that determines overall accountability? Is it the randomness of personalities and spectrums? Is there any evidence of a change over time and social evolution?
They are hard questions. I wonder if any observational evidence exists around the various dwindling native groups that exist(ed) in various degrees of isolation. It is also a question of how fixation, paranoia, and anxiety may have evolved in the human species over time. It would be really interesting to be able to contrast this kind of behavior potential now versus the deep past.
