Evolution of Slavery - from 1st Evolved

Evolution of Slavery - from 1st Evolved Humans to Today

Why have we never had individual rights, if it is the ideal moral code for humans?

Mental experiment reminder

In order to understand the history of humans correctly, we need to start at the beginning and move forward, in the order that humans figured things out.

Imagine a basement room that is massive. There is no artificial light in this room. There is a small window that lets in a little light on one corner of the room, when the sun is up. Humans are evolved animals from the jungle. We knew nothing when we first started out. It would be like putting a bunch of humans, who just woke up from commas and can’t remember anything, in a basement, with no lights, and just see what happens. The humans are not told the point of what is going on, they are just put there, and then human nature takes over.

Humans today can turn on the basement lights and see the environment that early humans had to deal with. We know that they were not only completely in the dark about reality and human nature, but their “basement environment” included giant bears, wolves, lions, tigers, giant monkeys, and was full of bacteria/viruses/venoms. Just about everything in their environment could kill them and they had zero modern technology. They probably had a series of grunts that worked as a primitive language, but if you cannot communicate with others, then it is really hard to work efficiently with them. Just think of how many fights/deaths happen because of miscommunication. The more primitive your language, the higher percent chance there is that miscommunication will happen.

Learning knowledge was a terribly slow process, especially because we did not have ways to accurately store knowledge as we learned it. Humans did not have written language for a long time after they evolved, and even then, the ways to store that written language were not that efficient.

Today’s “basement environment” has artificial light that is on 24/7, it has grocery stores, hospitals, libraries, police, education systems, etc. It is really easy to look at human society with all the knowledge that we have now and understand what is moral and what is not. It took hundreds of thousands of years to gain the knowledge that we have today. Even with all the knowledge that we have in the world now, the vast majority of humans are still stuck inside their irrational world views.

It was a long hard journey going from a basement with no technology and knowledge, to the basement of today with all the knowledge and technology that we have currently.

Human nature is short-term based, while correct moral code requires long term thinking.

Humans can’t close the gap between “short term thinking” and “long term thinking” without evidence to override short term thinking. Humans can’t have evidence without knowledge of what to look for. The only way to gain knowledge is to experiment with reality through guess and check. Humans started out with no knowledge, so it was always going to take a lot of time and experience to build up that knowledge base.

Humans are not able to engage their long-term thinking until they learn to use their frontal lobe. After they learn about the frontal lobe and how to use it, then humans need to gain enough evidence from reality to convince their primal brain that it should ignore its short-term thinking 99% of the time and default to the frontal lobes long term thinking. Humans need tons of evidence to convince themselves that it is in their best interest to think long term over short term.

Humans are organic beings that have a fundamental nature, which is based on the objective reality that they live in. Human nature is not fundamentally designed for long term thinking. Evolution’s goal is surviving and passing on your genes. It is a messy process that is inefficient. Organisms evolve based on what works for survival and adaptation. Human nature is concerned with making sure that humans survive today. This is the most important foundation that humans can have, because if humans do not survive today, then there is no tomorrow. This is why human nature is fundamentally selfish, tribalistic, and emotional.

Humans cannot be anything but selfish. It does not matter what you value in life, you can only act selfishly in life. All human action first starts as a desire inside of that person; a person has a desire for something in reality and then that person acts on that desire that they have. It does not matter whether YOU desire something positive/negative for yourself or something positive/negative for another person, it is still YOUR desire and YOUR action that takes place. All organisms are selfish.
1. The only choice that humans have is whether to be IRRATIONALLY selfish or REASON-BASED selfish. Humans do not have any other choice than that. You can be reason-based or irrationally based.
  1. All humans who believe that they are “other person” based, are 100% IRRATIONALLY based. You literally cannot have the core of YOURSELF located inside another human being. All human consciousness is located inside each individual. All human desire and action are selfish, even if you are acting in a way that benefits other people. If YOU don’t understand that YOU are the center of YOUR life desires and actions, then YOU are IRRATIONALLY based.
  2. Human survival is focused on the individual selfishly doing what it needs to, to survive. The emotional brain is really only able to see the individual. The emotional brain can really only see what makes it survive. The emotional brain is “me win” focused.
    1. It is not accurate to say that the emotional brain is “me win and you lose” focused. The emotional brain is just focused on “me win.”
      1. The kind of thinking that comes from only focusing on 1 person in an environment and an equation, will almost always lead to “win-lose” situations. The emotional brain is best understood through the mind of a toddler. A toddler is not trying to harm others, but a toddler is not worried if they do harm to others. They really aren’t thinking about others, which often leads to irrational behavior and interactions.
      2. If it comes down to a choice between “me win” or “me lose” then the emotional brain is always going to pick “me win.” An emotional brain is not trying to make others fail, but if the only way for “me win” to happen, is for “you lose” then the emotional brain will pick “me win” regardless of what happens to the “other person.”
        
        This explains how so many people were able to rationalize slavery. It’s why so many people still rationalize slavery.
  3. Humans cannot be long term reason-based selfish without enough objective knowledge to convince them that they should trust their frontal lobe’s thinking, even if it goes against the primal brain’s fundamental instincts.
    1. Humans cannot fathom “win-win” thinking in a long-term society without gaining a ton of knowledge about reality and human nature, which they simply did not have when they first evolved. First humans had zero frontal lobe knowledge that could be easily passed on to kids.
The primal brain is more fundamental to human consciousness than the frontal lobe is. Human nature is fundamentally emotional. The primal brain evolved before the frontal lobe, so it’s reasonable to think that human consciousness is fundamentally emotional. The frontal lobe is 100% a part of human nature and it is the single thing that separates us most from all other animals. The reason that humans have so much knowledge and technology is due to our frontal lobes’ ability to take in information and accurately analyze it. Humans are not able to efficiently use their frontal lobe, if they are emotionally or instinctually overwhelmed. It is fair to think that a large amount of early human experience was dominated by emotional and instinctual thinking. Humans had to overcome a lot to create societies that encouraged frontal lobe thinking as the norm.
1. The emotional brain is irrationally biased towards itself, because it had to be in order for humans to survive and evolve. A human has to see themselves as good and valuable, if they are to fight for their life and their everyday survival. Every human is fundamentally narcissistic to some degree, because if they were not, then they would not have survived long enough to pass on their genes. The humans who did not value their life and think it was worth all the trouble that humans in the jungle had to go through, do not live long enough to pass on their genes. Only people who valued their existence in the jungle passed on genes. Jungle life was extremely difficult, short, and full of death and suffering, the only humans who survived and passed on their genes, were the humans who believed they were valuable enough to do the work needed to survive and mate.
  1. Human life today is not that hard compared to the jungle humans evolved in. Human nature is not designed for today’s modern world. I am not saying that human nature does not work in today’s world, because it certainly does work in today’s world. I just want to make it clear in the readers’ head that human nature was designed by the laws of nature. Human nature was designed to help humans live and survive their entire lives in the woods, which humans did for a couple hundred thousand years.
  2. The emotional brain is so narcissistic that it can only be “controlled” or “submissive” to a superhero, a god, Goku, or a perfect human. The emotional brain believes it can do anything and is special in a way that separates itself from every other human. The emotional brain values itself above everyone else.
    1. The reason that the emotional brain values itself above everyone else is completely due to human nature. In a hunter gatherer tribe, the alpha male and alpha female get the most social help, attention, praise, and first rights to food and mating.
      1. The alpha male gets first right to sex and food. Sex and food are the two things that are most fundamental to human nature. We have to take in energy to survive, and we have to breed to survive past our life.
        
        Fighting is the 3rd most fundamental nature for a male. A male needs food and sex. In order to get the rights for food and sex, a male has to fight the other males to demonstrate that they are the best.
      2. The alpha female wants to mate with the strongest and smartest male, so that those traits are passed onto their kids. The best way to get the best genes for their kids is to mate with the male that wins the most fights.
      3. The emotional brain wants to be the alpha in their tribe, but it is smart enough to know that it is not always going to be the alpha. The emotional brain will always value itself more than others, but it is able to accept another human being as their leader in reality.
        
        No human is born the alpha in a hunter gatherer tribe. All humans know what it is like to be a beta, because all kids are betas. All humans’ emotional brains are able to realize when it’s over matched and it needs to accept another human as alpha.
        
        The alpha in a hunter gatherer tribe is going to be a human who is in good physical shape, so this means that an alpha will not die an alpha, if they live to a very old age.
        
        The alpha male will face challenges as they grow older, and their body weakens. Eventually a younger male is going to beat them and become alpha.
        
        The former alpha may still be valued in society and looked for wisdom, but if they live long enough, they will not die the alpha, at least in first evolved tribes.
        
        The individual will accept another human being, being their alpha in physical reality, but inside their mental imagination, the individual human still sees themselves as their alpha.
        
        This means that the emotional brain is always subconsciously looking for a way to become alpha. This mindset is both good and bad.
        
        This mindset is good for the individual short term because it keeps them looking for a way to become alpha and give them the best rights to sex and food.
        
        This mindset is good for the individual in the long run, because it means that the human is anti-slavery for itself.
        
        This mindset is bad in the sense that it continuously stops individuals from working optimally together to enhance each other’s lives. The emotional brain could not see or understand “win-win” human interaction fully for the first couple hundred thousand years.
2. Human nature is fundamentally primal brain based first and frontal lobe-based 2nd. This is true whether you look at humans when they first evolved or humans today. Humans will always be emotionally based first and reason-based thinking 2nd. The difference between humans when we first evolved vs. humans today, are that humans today place a much higher value on the frontal brain’s ability to reason, than humans who first evolved. Human history has been a process of going from valuing our emotional brain most, to valuing our frontal lobe brain most.
  1. It would help if the reader imagined a long straight road with no lights that goes from point A to point B. Point A is the primal brain. Point B is the frontal lobe. The individual is standing at point A, but it has no concept of primal brain, frontal lobe, or anything else. The only thing the individual has is the desire for food and sex. The individual does not even know about point B.
    1. Imagine the road between point A and B as a video game where you have to explore the map for resources and then build a shelter. The entire map is hidden, and you cannot see anything but your individual character standing at point A. As the character spreads out and explores the map, the map slowly begins to reveal itself to you. You can see more of the map, but you still really don’t know anything. It’s a long process trying to explore the map and understand it, when you have zero information to begin with.
      1. The worst part about this game is that you cannot use your frontal lobe to reason, think, and understand information, because you cannot use your frontal brain when you do not have access to it. You cannot get access to point B until you get there first. This means that most of the time early humans were using their more inefficient primal brain to think about the world as opposed to their frontal brain.
        
        We don’t know for sure because we do not have evidence about the first evolved humans. It is reasonable to think that first evolved humans relied more on their fundamental instincts to survive rather than using their frontal lobe to think what is optimal long term. Early humans most definitely used their frontal lobes from time to time, but it is most likely that they were more emotional based in their thinking verses reason-based thinking.
  2. It is important to remind the reader that humans cannot use their frontal lobe if their primal brain is overwhelmed. Human desire starts in the primal brain. The primal brain is involved in every human action, while the use of the frontal brain is optional.
    1. Ideally human desire goes from the primal brain to the frontal lobe for analysis, and then the human acts once they have thought through their conscious desire.
    2. One psychological hack that humans have been using since before recorded history to increase their efficiency in handling the emotional brain, is the use of superhuman heroes, mythological heroes, and invented gods. As mentioned above, humans are irrationally emotional and narcissistic, which means that they view themselves as the best human. This means that they get very frustrated and emotional when life or other humans act in ways that they do not approve.
      1. Life is really tough in the woods, and the emotional brain can only do so much. Humans invented superhuman heroes to help them overcome their emotions and instinct, so that they can remain in control of their mind and body regardless of the environment and challenge that life presents.
        
        A roadblock develops between the primal brain and the frontal lobe, if a human is overwhelmed emotionally and/or instinctively.
        
        The superhuman hero breaks through the roadblock. The superhuman hero concept does figuratively whatever the human individual needs.
        
        If the human is scared, then the hero gives them courage.
        
        If the human is depressed, then the hero gives them the energy and motivation to get to their next meal.
        
        If a human is so excited that they cannot think straight, then they can give some of their extra energy to their hero to vent it off, metaphorically.
        
        Metaphorically speaking, the hero acts like a sheep dog guiding the desires from the primal brain to the frontal lobe. A psychological “hero concept” increases the human’s efficiency to use reason to enhance their life.
      2. The “superhuman hero concept” was needed in order to help humans go from hunter gatherers to having the global human society that we have today. Humans would have never left the woods and jungle without having some kind of “god/hero concept” to unite them beyond single hunter gatherer tribes.
        
        The “hero concept” being necessary for humans becoming civilized does not make the hero, literally real. The concept is true, but the specific details of the hero do not really matter. The only thing that matter is that the hero is beyond a normal human’s abilities and that the hero represents some kind of moral code.
        
        As mentioned above, the emotional brain is 100% committed to the individual and will always value itself over all other humans. This is why the superhero has to be a god, a mythological hero, or a perfect human (a human has to be viewed as divinely influenced to be considered perfect), for the individual to accept it as being valuable enough to have such an important role inside the human’s imagination.
        
        The whole point of the hero concept is to unite the tribe with the same moral code. A tribe can only work optimally if they are on the same page as each other. We have already talked about how the emotional brain will always value itself over all other humans. A tribe that has each member with different goals, is going to be hard to get them all to work efficiently together. The whole point of the hero concept is to replace the individual as the individual’s most important principle. A tribe where all members are connected with the same fundamental goal and values will be able to efficiently work together more to meet the individual’s surviving needs.
        
        An individual will only replace themselves as the main goal of the emotional brain, if they believe it is in their best interest.
        
        Humans were not able to have large societies until they had similar moral codes, which were not possible to spread without some kind of superhero concept. The superhero effectively acts as a messenger delivering the new moral code to each individual’s primal brain.
        
        If the superhero concept is set up in an irrational way, then it is going to lead to immorality. The hero concept helps unite humans together in large numbers, but that does not mean that the societies that those humans form will be moral. The superhero concept just makes it possible to have larger societies than simple hunter gatherer tribes.
        
        The first superhero concepts were always going to be set up irrationally because early humans did not have the knowledge that is needed in order to set up the hero concept in a reason-based way.
        
        Irrationality always leads to immorality. Immorality always leads to suffering. Suffering causes humans to come up with a new approach and strategy, through a revolution. Revolutions lead to a new moral code and hero for society. If this new moral code and hero concept is set up irrationally, then the cycle repeats. This is the social cycle that humans have been going through their entire history. Humans have been continuously guessing and checking when it comes to setting up the hero concept. Humans have been building up knowledge throughout this process, but it has been very slow and inefficient, which is why the majority of humans are still irrational and immoral in their overall world views. Humans are mortal organisms that have been getting closer and closer to what is correct, but it was not until 2022 that a moral code and hero concept was reasonably set up. Now it just needs to be spread throughout human society.
3. Human history was always going to be full of immorality, because humans are fundamentally emotional. Emotions alert us to stuff in the environment, but if we use emotions to try and guide our life, then we will always become irrational. Emotions are not tools for clear information analysis. Emotions always turn irrational. In the beginning 1st evolved humans relied on emotions because that was all they knew at that point in time.
  1. Irrationality always leads to immorality.
    1. Humans did not know anything in the beginning, which means that they don’t even have a concept for being reason based or irrational. You cannot be moral if you don’t even have a concept to represent what moral means.
  2. We had to go from our emotional brain to our reason brain, only using our emotional brain for guidance, because we literally had not reached the reason brain yet, so obviously we cannot use what we do not have access to.
    1. Some humans gained access to their frontal lobe faster than other people. This was a good thing and a bad thing.
      1. The early humans who used their frontal lobe gained an advantage on their fellow humans who did not use their frontal lobe. These early frontal lobe brain users were able to analyze information more accurately than their emotional brained humans. This increase in knowledge could give these early humans an advantage when it comes to getting food, mating rights, and having positive social relationships with other humans.
      2. Early humans who were frontal lobe brain dominated ran the risk of standing out too much from other humans. Humans want to be the best, but if you dominate other humans to such a degree that you embarrass them, then those emotionally insecure humans can turn violent. Humans do not like to get embarrassed or lose challenges. Humans murder other humans who make them feel insecure all the time. I can only imagine that humans get more insecure and violent the farther back in human history that you go.
        
        Japan has a saying, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered.”
        
        Humans have a desire to be the best, but it is better for your overall health if others feel as though you are only slightly better than them, rather than WAYYY better than them.
        
        Emotional people have been murdering reasonable people in society since humans evolved in the jungle. Unfortunately, emotional people are still murdering reasonable people who point out their insecurities and cognitive dissonance.
        
        Islam is the perfect example of emotionally delusional people who murder the reason-based people in their societies. Islam is 100% against individual rights, free speech, free expression, etc. Muslims have been murdering reason-based people since Muhammed invented his terrorist ideology, which is dedicated to his personal glory and desires. Muhammed was completely irrational and emotionally insecure. He was the most narcissistically evil human who has ever lived. He created a single human supremacist death cult that is designed to murder every human who does not be his complete slave. Muhammed believed he was the greatest human ever, even though it’s totally irrational to say your better than people who haven’t even been born yet. Muhammed gave himself the right to murder every other human, unless they became his slave. Trans-prophet Muhammed was the lowest point of all creation.
        
        Humans should always be working to elevate what is possible, so if someone is truly great, then they would do work that is focused on facts of reality, so that future humans can reach levels that they could not. The perfect example of this would be Issac Newton. Newton understood reality better than anyone who had ever lived up to the point in history that he lived. Now a days, the average physicist grad student knows far more about reality than Newton ever did. Newton was a true human hero who pushed humanity forward.
        
        Marxism is another perfect example of a group of humans who are emotionally delusional and take pride in murdering reason-based people in society. Marx was completely irrational and emotionally based. He was a jealous, lazy, and entitled human being, who hated the most productive humans in society because they made him feel completely insecure. This is why communism murdered over 100 million people in the 1900’s. Marxist murder the people who provide the most value to society on average and then they wonder why they keep starving. Marx was the 2nd lowest point in all of human history. Marxism was always going to fail because he had no idea about evolution when he invented his group terrorist ideology, plus Marxism is 100% irrationally greedy, entitled, lazy scum people.
Humans are fundamentally tribal based. The correct moral code for humans means siding with individual rights in the “Individual vs group” rights war. Humanity is still very much locked in this war between the individual and the collective. Currently, the collective holds 99% of the power.
1. As much as humans are individual in their nature, they are still fundamentally tribal based. Humans have zero percent chance of surviving to adulthood where they can be an individual, unless they had a tribe to raise them during the first 10 years of their life, at least. Humans would not have evolved without this fundamental tribal nature.
  1. Tribal based nature is short-term thinking and impossible to define rights for, because the tribe is completely dependent on what individuals make it up. The best rights for the tribe depend on what type of people are in the tribe, so these rights would need to change based on the individuals in the current group. This means that some group rights are going to have to go against other group rights, so this is just going to be a process of not making much progress at all.
  2. Individual rights is long term thinking. It is the only moral system that reasonably defines boundary lines which work well with the individual and tribal nature of humans.
    1. Humans could not develop the concept of individual rights without tons of knowledge that they just did not have when we first evolved. Humans need language, writing, and technology, in order to build up their knowledge base to the point that they can develop a concept like individuals rights. After they develop the concept then they need humans who are willing to try it out and collect information about the effectiveness of this new concept. Humans need large amounts of positive evidence that this frontal lobe brained concept is valuable enough that humans should trust its advice over the desires and nature of the primal brain.

It was always going to be a long process for animals from the woods, who are emotional, tribalistic, and selfish, to realize that the optimal moral code for human nature and reality is reason and individual rights.

You need tons of evidence from reality to convince humans that they need to use their long-term thinking frontal lobe, instead of their primal brain. Even if you collect tons of evidence, it still may not be enough to break the emotional irrationalism that many humans still use to guide their life. Most of the world still believes in an “interactive god” and no amount of evidence is going to break them out of their current cognitive dissonance.

To be fair though, I guess we will find out how the world handles this new information that explains human nature and its history in such a simple way. Before 2022 the world did not have a moral ideology that was set up 100% not irrationally. The world has never had human nature explained in this simple way before, so I guess we will see how humans approach this information.

Why have humans always had slavery? Is slavery necessary?

A good question to ask yourself right now is,

“If individual rights are really the only morally correct social system for humans, then why have humans never actually had true individual rights? Why is human history dominated with slavery?”

There are two reasons why humans have always had slavery.

Human nature is short term emotionally based.
Humans started off their existence without any knowledge or understanding about their environment and their moral organic nature.

Humans are evolved animals from the jungle. We did not evolve with an information book that explained the nature of reality or humans. We had to figure it out on the go. Human history is one long example of trial and error, similar to how a toddler learns about their reality and themselves. They start off not knowing anything. They just follow their instincts as they explore and try out things in their environment. They slowly learn stuff and begin to build up their knowledge database, which helps them in future life decisions. This process is effective and works, but it takes a long time due to the fact that it is not a perfectly efficient strategy and the fact that the human brain does have limits in its ability to take in information, analyze that information, and then figuring out how to best act on that information.

It is not possible to know how to correctly treat other humans and yourself, until you have a certain level of knowledge about reality and human nature. Humans were just instinctual animals driven by their instincts and emotions in the beginning. Humans had no conscious database full of knowledge to help guide them when we first evolved. All that conscious knowledge had to be figured out, including understanding what it means to even be conscious vs unconscious.

Human nature is fundamentally selfish, emotional/instinctual, and tribal based. All three of these things alone have great potential to cause irrationality in humans, but when you combine all three, then it is like stacking the deck with 99% irrationality.
1. All organisms are selfish. An animal would not survive and evolve unless it is fundamentally selfish. There is literally no way around organic mortal organisms being selfish.
  1. To make it worse, the organism is completely short term selfish. It cannot become long term reason based selfish, until it has the experience and knowledge to override that fundamentally short term based foundational instinct.
2. Emotions help us identify things in reality that we need or need to avoid. Emotions are not clear tools of thinking, which is why the more you use them to “think/analyze” the more irrational you become.
  1. Emotions are like “the dark side of the force” because they cloud everything and make it impossible to think clearly about what the optimal action is moving forward (Star Wars reference).
3. Humans are fundamentally tribal, because humans would not exist without a tribe to raise them to adulthood. Humans cannot exist without a tribe or society. This means that humans must calculate “other humans” or “the tribe” whenever they decide to take an action.
  1. A human must decide if the action that they are going to take is viewed positively, negatively, or does not really cause a reaction from the tribe.
    1. There is no way to know how a tribe will respond to something that is brand new. You can only judge based on experience. This means that the tribe may like the action or dislike the action. This uncertainty makes the process of learning new skills and knowledge inefficient because an individual has to hide this new action to some degree until they have enough understanding that they feel confident that the tribe will respond in a positive way and treat them well.
      1. If the tribe likes the action, then the individual may receive social support and praise. This may cause the individual to move up the ladder of importance to the tribe. This incentive helps to push the tribe members to look for ways to improve their behaviors and views.
      2. If the tribe or another individual likes the new idea/behavior, then the individual runs the risk of being killed or harmed. It may seem irrational to think that a positive new behavior could lead to an individual’s death, but it is a real possibility.
        
        The person who INTRODUCES the new positive idea to the tribe will get the credit for it and all the social incentives that come with it, NOT the person who comes up with the idea. The person who comes up with the new idea has the best chance of being the person who introduces the new idea to the tribe but does not guarantee it.
        
        There are many humans who are not able to create new positive ideas for human society, but many of these humans would be willing to murder and take the new idea to the tribe as their own. Murdering another human for positive gain is a common action taken by humans throughout history.
      3. If the tribe does not approve of the new idea or sees it as some kind of threat, then the individual who introduces it can face a range of negative consequences, which includes death or negative social stigmas for the individual moving forward.
      4. Humans do not like change, so any new behavior is going to run the risk of negative push back. In order for a new idea or behavior to be adopted by other people, the individual who presents the new idea/behavior has to demonstrate that it is a massive improvement on what the tribe was doing before. The tribe will likely not accept a new behavior/idea if it is only a small improvement on the previous method used.
    2. The power structure in a tribe is a spectrum. There is a clear alpha for the most part in tribes. Underneath the alpha, there is going to be the top 2-3 individuals that are next in line to be alpha, if the current alpha dies, pisses too many people off, or is no longer strong enough to hold the top spot. Below the alpha and the humans next in line to be alpha, there is a range of humans. The lower the human is to the bottom of the hierarchy, the less power, influence, and rights they have in the hunter gatherer tribe.
      1. The more power an individual has in the tribe, the more likely it is that they will not face negative consequences for introducing a new behavior/idea to the tribe.
      2. The lower a human is in the tribe, the more careful they have to be when introducing a new idea/behavior.
      3. All humans desire to be the tribe alpha when they are small kids, but not all humans want to be alpha once they grow up. Some humans grow up and realize that they do not want the stress of being alpha.
        
        They do not want to deal with the stress of looking over their shoulder for humans who are trying to always take them out and take their spot.
        
        They do not want the responsibility of having the tribe rely on them for its survival.
        
        Some realize that they may not have the skills or ambition needed to beat other humans who are fighting for that spot.
      4. Not all adult humans want to be the alpha, but all adult humans do NOT want to be at the bottom of the tribe’s hierarchy. The people at the bottom of the tribe’s hierarchy have it the worst in the tribe.
        
        The bottom people get the worst rights to food. They have to wait for others to eat first.
        
        The men at the bottom of the hierarchy have virtually no mating rights.
        
        The women at the bottom of the hierarchy have the least help from the tribe when it comes to raising their child.
        
        The men at the bottom of the hierarchy are usually the ones that the alpha will force to sacrifice themselves to predators, so that the tribe can get away.
        
        Being at the bottom of the hierarchy means that you get almost no social support and praise.
        
        A tribe will fight for the life of an alpha far more than they will fight for the guy at the bottom of the hierarchy.
There was no human database when we evolved. Humans did not have any concepts or conscious knowledge when we first evolved. It is not even possible to be moral, without first having a concept of what that even means. Human instinct is designed to help humans work together in a general sense, but the more specific you get into aspects of human interactions, the more unclear it becomes about what is best from an instinct point of view. Human instinct often contradicts itself when more than one human is involved. Humans are always looking for the best option for themselves, which means that human interaction often leads to two people butting heads due to the fact that each human wants the other human to give them what they want and be submissive to them. There can only be 1 top alpha in a tribe. In order to reasonably navigate human interactions in a morally correct manner, humans need tons and tons and tons of objective knowledge and evidence, in order for humans to bypass their primal brains decision so that they can act on their frontal lobe’s advice.
1. Humans have instincts that are passed on, but humans are not born with conscious knowledge. Human knowledge is shared from one generation to the next. Human knowledge can also be learned firsthand by humans when they interact with reality and other humans in a new way. Knowledge is learned/discovered and then it is passed on.
  1. Humans need language in order to communicate with each other. Building a language that goes beyond primitive grunts is going to take time.
  2. Humans need a way to physically store knowledge in order to improve their efficiency in passing on knowledge to the next generation. It was always going to take time for humans to develop a written language.
    1. The first languages were always going to be primitive and inefficient. It takes time to create the first written language. It takes an even larger amount of time to invent efficient written language to pass on information.
  3. Humans instinctually and subconsciously know that knowledge is important. They know they need food, so they instinctively gather knowledge about food sources; where it is, what it is (an animal or plant, and what kind), and when to try and get it.
    1. It was going to take time for humans to learn and understand that we need to always be consciously learning all the new information that we can about our reality and our human nature.

Human nature is “me-win” focused. Correct moral code for humans is “win-win” focused. It is a long, painful, and inefficient process going from “me-win” to “win-win.”

What is the evolution of human conceptual understanding and approach to human interaction?

“Me-win.” Human nature is both tribal based and individual based. The natural default view of humans is “me-win” and “my tribe-win.” The individual human values themselves most, because it is the best strategy for that individual to survive. The individual values themselves over all other individual humans. The human instinctively knows that they need a tribe to survive, so they have a fundamental nature to fight for the tribe that supports their life.
“Me-not lose.” The 2nd mindset that humans have when it comes to human interaction is “me -not lose.” This is the mindset that the bottom 80% of adult humans have. They have already tried and lost to be alpha, or they understood that they had no chance to be alpha. These individual humans understand that “me-win” is not really a possibility for them, so these individuals develop a mindset of “me-not lose.” These humans cannot “win” the alpha spot, so they instead focus on making sure that they are not the bottom of the tribe’s hierarchy. The bottom of the hierarchy means that that human is going to most likely have a short life that is full of many hardships.
“You lose.” It is more effective and efficient to consciously be “you lose” vs “me-not lose” which is subconscious and vague. A human is more effective and efficient when they are consciously making sure that someone else loses, because if someone else loses then that means that that person is not going to be at the bottom on the hierarchy ladder. A person who has the mindset of “me-not lose” is spread out in their thinking, because they are comparing themselves to all the people who they potentially see as competition for that bottom spot. This means that a person is focused on more than one person and is trying to be better than each of those perceived challengers. It is much more efficient and effective for a human to identify one of the weaker and below average humans and then formulate a specific plan and strategy to throw that single person under the bus. It is easier to convince the other tribe members to hate a single person than 3 or more people.
1. This is where 95% of humanity is. The vast majority of humans are convinced that there is always going to be some type of slave class needed for human society to function according to the “social math” information/knowledge that their emotional brain spit out. These people know that some human interactions can be “win-win” but they think those cases are the exception and can only happen rarely.
  1. These people more accurately think more in terms of “me not slave-you not slave” rather than in terms of “win-win.” These people know that some human interactions can take place where each human benefits, but they believe that that is only possible as long as there is a class or group of humans out there in their society that are slaves/losers.
  2. These people think that human society in general, can only function as a “win-lose” society.
“Win-win” is only possible in a society where everyone has individual rights.
1. “Win-win” does not mean that people do not experience losses in life. It simply means that each person is interacting with each other in a voluntary way that respects each person’s right to control their life’s path. It means that neither person is a slave.
  1. People will still experience losses in sports, business, or their love life, but they will do so as free individuals. People have the right to try out, but they are not entitled to a trophy.
  2. Humans are not entitled to anything. Reality is objective and does not care about whether you live or not. Humans do not morally have a right to food, sex, medicine, or anything else. If humans want things in life, then it is up to them to figure out how to acquire those things individually. A human can work to acquire those things with the help of other humans, but if they are to do it morally, then their interactions with other humans must be done voluntarily.
    1. There is no “interactive god” to give humans the things that they desire. Only humans have the power to fulfill human desires.
    2. Humans do not have a right to use violence to enslave other humans. It is immoral for a human to control another human. It is immoral for a human to steal another human’s labor/resources.
    3. Humans can get resources from other humans, but it is only moral if it is done so voluntarily. Charity is only moral if the person giving it is free to do so or not do so, according to the choice made by their own mind.
2. Can’t happen until we have enough evidence to even have the concept of “win-win.”
3. Humans will not listen to their frontal lobe over their primal brain, unless there’s tons of evidence to make it clear that that is the selfishly correct action to take.
  1. We haven’t had a society that is fully “win-win” yet. We are still collecting the evidence/knowledge needed to have the confidence for our primal brain to take a “leap of faith.” It’s not really a faith-based prediction, because there is tons of evidence to reasonably know that “win-win” human interactions are the moral ideal. The emotional primal brain is not based on logic though. The primal brain thinks in terms of emotions and faith/belief, so for the primal brain to defer control to the frontal lobe it needs to be confident enough to take what it views as a “leap of faith.”
  2. So far, the evidence shows that the closer that countries get to a “win-win” society the better off it is for all those people in those societies.

Slavery was a necessary and temporary evil that had to take place in human history, in order for humans to discover correct human morality.

It is uncomfortable to say that humans had to go through a period of time with slavery, but it’s true. Remember we evolved in the woods, so let’s look at it from the perspective of first evolved humans. First evolved humans were surrounded by many predators, which includes other tribes of humans. These humans did not have much information to go on, they were the ones to start trying things out and learn what happened. These humans were mostly instinct driven, I would imagine.

What do you think happened when human tribes discovered that they desired the same resource? The specify resource does not really matter, it can be food, land, water, etc. What happened?

These people had 3 options of how to handle interaction with other humans:

Humans could work together to increase their chances of getting the resource. The tribes could work together at this one time or maybe they form a longer bond and join the tribes.
1. If tribes combine, then the hierarchy will have to be refigured out and where someone is currently could change.
One or both of the tribes turn around and avoid any interaction with the other tribe. This is likely if one of the tribes had a lot less people.
The two tribes went to war and the winner got to choose what to do with the members of the losing tribe. What do you think the winners did with the members of the losing tribe that were not killed in the fight? What can they do? Let’s also remember that it would have been the alpha male and his supporters in power that determined what to do. The alpha female probably added some input, but the decision was made by the alpha male.
1. Let’s eliminate some of the options from the modern-day menu of how to handle losers of war. The first evolved humans did not have jails, mental institutions, or any other kind of building that would be able to physically hold other humans from escaping. I do not know how long it was after evolving that humans began to build shelters, but the early shelters were not designed to physically restrain humans to a confined space like a jail does.
  1. Jail is not an option.
2. The alpha male will probably take the best females from the losing tribe for himself and his supporters and then the alpha will probably have most/all of the women join their overall tribe.
  1. You want women so that the tribe can continue to have kids. Childbirth has a high death rate, so tribes are always needing to replace females who did not survive childbirth.
  2. Even though the old women will not produce any more children, you would want to take them in to look after the younger females. The old women do a good job of helping to raise the young ones and they help keep the peace among the younger women.
3. The alpha male cannot trust the males of the losing tribe, because the only interaction he has with them was fighting to the death. Plus, it would not even be accurate to say that the alpha male “trusts” his close supporters in his own tribe. Alpha males know that they are always in the hot spot so there is always a certain percent of them that is looking over their shoulder.
  1. The alpha male will bring in the boys under age 8 or so, because those young boys can be mentally molded to call him alpha. They will soon forget about the other tribe and will grow up believing they’ve always been a part of this tribe. Young boys do not pose an immediate threat.
    1. First evolved humans were dying often, so they were always trying to replenish their numbers.
    2. Humans also have a natural desire to see others do well, as long as they are not a threat to themselves in any way. A human is self-first, but they do have a 2ndary nature to desire other humans to do well. It’s a bonding and tribal instinct.
  2. The alpha male will most likely kill all the other men ages 9-10 and up. Old men you don’t personally care about are just another mouth to feed, plus you don’t know if they still desire you to die. Men in their prime years are too much of a threat. An alpha will kill them or chase them off.

Hunter gatherer tribes continuously killing off all the men after each conflict is a very inefficient way for humans to gain knowledge and grow a society. Humans will always be at the hunter gatherer level, scrapping by in the woods barely surviving unless they gain knowledge and learn to specify jobs to increase their production efficiency. Humans have a desire to survive and thrive. Hunter gatherers have zero chance of life thriving by modern standards. Hunter gatherers are just scraping by and barely surviving. They can live this way for a very long time, but it is a very hard life and humans in this state do not have the concept of “human thriving” that people today in 1st world countries have.

You cannot build up a knowledge base and increase your efficiency in meeting your survival needs unless you take human society beyond that of the hunter gatherer. In order to build societies that go beyond the instinct of hunter gatherers, humans had to find ways to combine tribes into bigger societies.

Going from “me not lose” to “you lose” was very natural process for humans

Humans cannot grow large societies to increase knowledge and survival efficiency, if they always kill all the men after each fight.
Men would rather be the bottom of the hierarchy than be killed.
Men would rather have other men at the bottom of the hierarchy than be there themselves.
The tribe benefits from loser men contributing to the tribe’s ability to get resources and defend the tribe from predators and other tribes.
The loser men can have knowledge and skills that can be added to the tribe’s overall knowledge.
Humans most likely did not go from “killing the loser men” to “making the loser men slaves” because they did not have the technology to do that. Humans went from killing all the loser men to keeping them alive but putting them at the bottom of the tribe/society. This means that the first step towards slavery was a moral improvement upon the strategy and moral code of humans before that. It is understandable how slavery eventually formed.
1. Slavery means that a person does not have control over their life. It takes away what it means to be human. I cannot say slavery is worse than death. I also cannot say that death is worse than slavery. Both are horrible.
  1. The earliest “loser men” were not slaves though, they were just at the bottom of the hierarchy. They were treated the same as they treated the men at the bottom of the hierarchy in their own tribe.
2. Slavery is horrible. I am not glad that humans had to go through that phase. I am glad though that I understand why humans went through that phase. I am glad that humans are not “pure evil” and invented slavery to cause pain. Humans did not have many good options based on their nature, realities nature, and the fact that they really didn’t know anything objectively speaking.
  1. Humans improved their behavior to no longer kill all the loser men, instead they used those losers to help their overall tribe, but they were treated the worst in the tribe.
3. Humans went from “loser men being on the bottom of the hierarchy” to “loser men becoming slaves” over a very long period of time, which means that acceptance of slavery was gradual for the human mindset. Slavery was not possible without a certain level of technology.
  1. Humans had a “me win-you lose” attitude, so it was not hard for humans to go from “everyone in the tribe is on the social ladder” to humans deciding to cut off the bottom group of people on the ladder and put them into a new class of humans, which is located “below the social ladder” and serves the desires of all the people on the social ladder.
    1. People can climb from the bottom of the ladder to the top, which means that people are always scared that they will be pushed to the bottom of the ladder by others climbing up the ladder. If there was a permanent class of people that were always below others in the tribe/society, then people’s fear of falling to the bottom of the ladder would go away. Slavery was attractive to everyone in the tribe/society that was not on the bottom, so it likely was seen as a very positive thing, when slavery first started out.
      1. Once something gets ingrained and well rooted into society and the human mind, then it is very hard to root out. You cannot root it out without the knowledge, technology, and desire to do so, which was never going to happen quickly because humans started out with nothing. Slavery was always going to have to take place for thousands of years until we experienced enough life to learn a better way.

Creating bigger societies meant that humans had to create some kind of moral code concept that would allow humans to bond beyond the basic instincts. The main thing that this code had to address was “what do we do with the losing tribe’s men?” This issue is the biggest one that these humans faced, because women were not going to be in charge or really have a say for a while. The women of the losing tribe would join the new tribe, so there really was not anything to address there. The most logical way to incorporate these new men was to place them at the bottom of the hierarchy. Placing these men any higher than the bottom would piss off other members of the winning tribe.

All the men of the winning tribe would have loved this new arrangement because it meant that they were definitely not the bottom on the hierarchy. The only way to change the mind set from “kill the adult males” to “not kill the adult males” is for it to be set up in a selfishly beneficial way to the winning tribe’s members. The new arrangement made it so that the winning males now had a class of men below them in the tribe. 90% of men do not want to be the bottom on the hierarchy ladder, even more than they want to be the alpha. The 1% who only care about being alpha desire to take actions that help the other males in the group feel comfortable and supportive of them. The new arrangement was positive for everyone, including the loser men at the bottom of the hierarchy, because they were no longer killed off. These men were not great off, but better than dead. Life has possibility, while death has none.

I would not call these earliest arrangements slavery. Hunter gatherers were not at the level of technology for them to have slavery. In order to have slavery you need to have a way of locking the slave up and keeping them from running away. In these early hunter gatherer tribes, the loser men did not want to run away, because humans have a very low chance of survival on their own in the woods. These loser humans were most likely treated very badly but I would not call this phase slavery yet.

I do not know exactly when human moral code went from “putting the loser humans at the bottom of the hierarchy” to “making the loser humans slaves” but I am sure that it was a long slow process that happened over time. All humans have a history of slavery because humans could not get past the hunter gatherer phase without going through a slave phase. Humans had to move forward, even if it was irrational long term wise. They couldn’t gain the knowledge to understand what the best option long term is, without moving forward irrationally to go through the experiences that were needed in order to gain that knowledge to understand long term thinking.