Given what we see in nature, we have good moral reasons to hope that evolution is unintelligent and that accidents can result in excellent designs. If a superior intelligence is responsible for these advanced designs, then we would have to ask what we should do if it turns out that this superior designer is actually a villain.
We look back at the recent history and are frustrated that we can not do what they were able to do. We live in a world with many more rules, and a lot less opportunities. The conditions are like that of the experiment: we are frustrated in finding relief and observe what increasing appears completely random occurrences of success. The modern examples of people who do succeed, even in the technologies, appears more to be the case of the person being lucky at being in the right place at the right time rather than being particularly visionary or brilliant. Success is random, and consequently so is the pain of the lack of success. Success is also increasingly rare, leaving a large population in frustration, yearning for its master to save them.
Evolution of species may really be an evolution of an ecosystem. That ecosystem could respond emotionally and that emotion motivates it to find some solution to relieve that emotion. Emotionally driven intelligence would almost always come up with flawed designs. Those designs would satisfy the emotions instead of the intelligence.
Evolutionary psychology permits us a justification to at least propose a condition where such behaviors would be rewarded and thus passed down through future generations. The problem is that the historic record doesn’t provide clear evidence of this transitional period between hunter-gatherer tribes and settlement tribes. Instead we see evidence of the nomadic tribes tracking and following the food sources through the seasons, and we see evidence of the first settlements. Missing is a condition in between, a period where humans would acquire the behavioral traits to live in a more complex arrangement of even the simplest settlements.
Back to the evolutionary psychology, we assume we know what living conditions were like for our hunter-gatherer ancestors by extrapolating backward the central premise of evolution through natural selection of accidental variations. Following a similar line of reasoning, I am inclined to assume that first breeder was someone who adopted a few orphaned hunter gatherers and bred them to be compliant to a civilized life and prefer living within it than living in the ancestral alternative.
Learning is an instinctual behavior. If we had to be taught how to learn, we could never learn that lesson.
In an earlier post I wondered more about the oddness of the evolution tree having fat branches but filament-thin trunk, likening it more to a fungus than a tree. In that post I also noted my plans to talk about some superficial similarities I see in humans and pigs while admitting my own fondness…