lexico
Chukchi Salmon
A hypothesis on the origin of farming and religion and some questions regarding the evolution of modern ideas
Social behavior of the human species evloved out of the simple sharing of a common habitat due to the competitive edge of a coordinated mode of food production, food distribution, and food consumption over uncoordinated modes. The particular balance of the two conflicting principles of reciprocation and exploitation/deprivation depended on how one certain community would choose to selectively apply one principle for one relationship instead of the other.
The stable, predictable distribution of power and obligation among the in-group members would prefer reciprocation, and food produced would be offered in both directions, whereas the unstable, unpredictable relationship with an out-group could go either way; either reciprocal assuming on-going exchange of food, or non-reciprocal, the stronger getting away with exploitation while the weaker having to accept deprivation without reciprocation.
Offering up goods to the anthropomorphised greater powers of nature (or an abstraction of the deceased, powerful parents and ancestors) must have been based on the principle of reciprocation. By offering food to the "god(s)" in thanks for the beneficial foraging, the "god(s)" would reciprocate by allowing further successful foraging. Such ritually reciprocal relationship must have encouraged the reserving of the following as offerings to the "god(s)";
1) the best of captured wild animals
2) the best of foraged food plants
Out of the offspring of thus selected wild animals were born domesticated livestock with progressively positive traits, and vegetables and crop were similarly improved by harvesting the vegetables and crops that were foraged from what grew out of a prior season's offering into the ground. This is a possible model of the origin of domesticated animals and plants when the three major beginnings (neolithic technology, farming and herding, and the beginning of civilsation) roughly coincided around 12,000 yrs ago.
After 12,000 of cultural evolution, we are at a time when the authority of old religions founded several thousand yrs ago has much eroded with the progress of scientific ideologies, accessible information, and the spread of relativism. Nevertheless the old modes of goods production are still sun-based in the majority, and there has been no fundamental change in the manner in which we produce food while other goods production such as clothing, housing, and energy may have experienced great technological progress.
Could the non-symmetric development of goods production explain the awkward coexistence of scientific ideologies and conventional religion ?
Or does the persistence of the old mode of food-production mean conventional religions are far from over ?
Is a unifying philosophical understanding emerging out of the mosaic of modern science and conventional religion ?
Is modern science taking over what used to be governed by conventional religion although it does not have a unifying world view ?
Will a still new mode of thinking emerge that denies and surpasses both modern science and conventional religion ?
Or do you think the age of regious thinking is well over, and that we will live in a religion-free state for quite some time to come ?
edit: I apologise for the not-so-tidy wording and too many questions; also some references should have been provided from which I borrowed ideas. I was reading the "What is your religion ?" thread and remembered an old question; but I removed the Christian bias.
Social behavior of the human species evloved out of the simple sharing of a common habitat due to the competitive edge of a coordinated mode of food production, food distribution, and food consumption over uncoordinated modes. The particular balance of the two conflicting principles of reciprocation and exploitation/deprivation depended on how one certain community would choose to selectively apply one principle for one relationship instead of the other.
The stable, predictable distribution of power and obligation among the in-group members would prefer reciprocation, and food produced would be offered in both directions, whereas the unstable, unpredictable relationship with an out-group could go either way; either reciprocal assuming on-going exchange of food, or non-reciprocal, the stronger getting away with exploitation while the weaker having to accept deprivation without reciprocation.
Offering up goods to the anthropomorphised greater powers of nature (or an abstraction of the deceased, powerful parents and ancestors) must have been based on the principle of reciprocation. By offering food to the "god(s)" in thanks for the beneficial foraging, the "god(s)" would reciprocate by allowing further successful foraging. Such ritually reciprocal relationship must have encouraged the reserving of the following as offerings to the "god(s)";
1) the best of captured wild animals
2) the best of foraged food plants
Out of the offspring of thus selected wild animals were born domesticated livestock with progressively positive traits, and vegetables and crop were similarly improved by harvesting the vegetables and crops that were foraged from what grew out of a prior season's offering into the ground. This is a possible model of the origin of domesticated animals and plants when the three major beginnings (neolithic technology, farming and herding, and the beginning of civilsation) roughly coincided around 12,000 yrs ago.
After 12,000 of cultural evolution, we are at a time when the authority of old religions founded several thousand yrs ago has much eroded with the progress of scientific ideologies, accessible information, and the spread of relativism. Nevertheless the old modes of goods production are still sun-based in the majority, and there has been no fundamental change in the manner in which we produce food while other goods production such as clothing, housing, and energy may have experienced great technological progress.
Could the non-symmetric development of goods production explain the awkward coexistence of scientific ideologies and conventional religion ?
Or does the persistence of the old mode of food-production mean conventional religions are far from over ?
Is a unifying philosophical understanding emerging out of the mosaic of modern science and conventional religion ?
Is modern science taking over what used to be governed by conventional religion although it does not have a unifying world view ?
Will a still new mode of thinking emerge that denies and surpasses both modern science and conventional religion ?
Or do you think the age of regious thinking is well over, and that we will live in a religion-free state for quite some time to come ?
edit: I apologise for the not-so-tidy wording and too many questions; also some references should have been provided from which I borrowed ideas. I was reading the "What is your religion ?" thread and remembered an old question; but I removed the Christian bias.
Last edited:
