Cause and Effect on the Hunter-Gatherer Societies - Coursework Example

Introduction The earliest human societies started out as hunters and gatherers in the dawn of history and civilization. As such, these societies depended to a large extent on an accurate observance of the changes occurring in nature for their very survival. Failure to do so means deprivations and death for some while those who were able to predict certain outcomes survived. However, it can be said the observations made by hunters-gatherers relied largely on common sense and on what is termed as proto-science (the primitive science before the scientific method evolved into what it is today). Proto-science can be alternatively called as the pre-science period but it had nonetheless contributed a lot to the development of established scientific methods. Simple observations of the workings of nature ensured survival of primitive peoples. It could include things like when animals will gather, where these animals drink and the various shrubs, berries and fruits of trees that are edible or poisonous (Hassler & Wilcox, 2008, p. 8). It can be described that life back then was very precarious that depended mostly on Nature on how Man manages to adapt himself to Nature. Seasons and weather patterns likewise have to be predicted with a certain degree of accuracy in order for men to prepare themselves. This paper tries to examine how these primitive societies managed to survive from the rigors and challenges of Nature from which we are descended. It is quite interesting to note that due to this preoccupation with adjusting to Nature, men had learned almost by instinct on how to interpret the world to ensure survival. It had become second nature (pardon the pun) in which men at those times behaved resulting into an in-built bias that served as a very survival mechanism by relating the cause to its effect. This is the discussion in this paper. Discussion The hunter-gatherer societies existed before man learned to develop agriculture. Due to the very nature of being entirely dependent on the vagaries of Nature, man has no choice but to become nomadic whenever and wherever there is plentiful food supply and where it is relatively safe for him to obtain such food supplies. Because of man’s innate capacity to learn and learn quickly, observation of Nature alone is not sufficient for him to survive. To be able to make sense of the observed patterns in Nature, man has to construct a model. This model is then used to resolve the ambiguities often seen in Nature. As a result of this tendency to avoid ambiguity, our brain’s circuits are predisposed to error, bias and prejudice (ibid. p. 9). When confronted with ambiguities, two things usually happen: to jump to conclusions which are unsupported by any logical or objective evidence and secondly, to resist the change whenever these conclusions had been reached prior because these now had become habits. In the first instance cited above, it is precarious for people living in subsistence societies to make or commit this mistake as it can be costly in terms of materials, food supplies or even lives. In the consequence, a hunter-gatherer who very closely observes Nature will in all probability be able to survive the harshness of the environment by developing the cause-and-effect instincts. Direct observation is the most reliable method rather than relying on model which may not be workable at all. This effort is to remove ambiguity or at the very least obtain some semblance of the correlation between cause and effect to provide explanation within a context. The value of this mindset to the hunter-gatherer is to connect the dots, so to speak, that will help him survive in the wild and prepare for the challenges that Nature will pose for him. Without this instinctive reaction of connecting the cause to the subsequent effect, his survival is not assured. This assumes, of course, that the hunter-gatherer is an astute observer of all the things and happenings around him and moreover, he was able to make sense of what is about to happen based on his mental models that give meaning to the natural world. There are three ways by which humans learn about their surroundings, namely: by the received knowledge, ways of knowing and finally, modern skeptical empiricism. The received knowledge is the overall knowledge passed down from one generation to the next, from father to son and mother to daughter. Mystical and magical attributions fall within this category. The observations made through this mode are the natural patterns that ensure survival of a hunter- gatherer and in turn, with the agricultural societies which soon followed. This is a precursor of the proto-science which existed mostly in the early years of our civilization which had been mixed with theological attributions as well to help explain the order of things in Nature. Ways of knowing pertain to the extremely careful and detailed observations made by humans that partly explained the observations according to logical and rational deductions. In this mode, Nature is explained from the viewpoint or perspective of a logical human mind. At best, this model of acquiring knowledge is based on the so-called self-evident truths. It means one cannot question the why and wherefore of things but just to accept them as they are. This mode of knowledge acquisition also partially removes ambiguities to complete the observed patterns of cause-and-effect so common in the environment. When one accepts these things without questioning, it helps to ensure survival by eliminating the need for trial and error. The last model is the modern skeptical empiricism which is the very basis of today’s modern science. It does not assume anything through philosophical musings or the thought experiments so common at that time but rather acquires knowledge through very careful and detailed observations through experimentation, measurements and analysis of all the results. This approach requires scientific proof that is the basis of modern science. Previous models of presumed knowledge are subjected to empirical or actual proof using scientific experiments to test the model of explaining by making certain predictions (hypothesis) of the outcome. This is especially useful when there are appreciable time lags between cause and effect but still be able to make the right connections between these two events (Bettinger, 1991, p. 191). Human Psyche – it can be said that the evolution of the human mind is the result of the response to the problems of survival in a subsistence existence (Lord, 2009, p. 313). An innate idea about the mechanical cause and effect patterns observed in Nature was a logical result of this constant struggle for survival and has been imprinted into the human psyche as a survival mechanism. In other words, to understand the things around him, Man ended up with deeply ingrained characteristics of cause and effect that will ensure his survival and that of his kin. This built-in aspect to see and interpret the world in cause-and-effect terms is the very reason why Man had survived and developed into the more intelligent being he is today. If not for this survival instinct and ability to see the world in these terms, Man’s existence cannot be assured as he is physically weak compared to the other animals, such as a lion or an elephant. This ability to associate cause with effect ensured his survival because it gave Man the insight to look for food supplies, assure his safety and in general, avoid the dangers that can threaten him in a precarious existence with other larger, stronger and swifter animals. Man is at serious disadvantage compared to these other animals and he therefore relied more on his wit and an innate intelligence to interpret things and even project certain events before these can happen. This ability gave him an edge because he can interpret the environment much better. This constant repetition of a world composed of immediate perceptual experience has contributed greatly to the innate way of thinking about cause and effect. This material contact on a daily basis leads to observed reactions of a hunter-gatherer that is mechanistic causality. The repetition ensures that events previously observed to be true (or what is known to us to be innate ideas or intuitive understanding) can guide the early Man and ensure he does not fall to become a victim of the vagaries of Nature. However, this instinctive reaction is so deeply in our minds or psyche that we ended up associating unrelated events to same cause and effect phenomenon although it might not be the case this time. Using cause and effect is the most and most coherent explanation for certain random events, with the exception of magic. Linearity – the direct relationship between cause and effect is very easy to understand. Even in primitive societies, this associative relationship can help explain many things even to a child. This simplicity helps a great deal to make sense of the world around us and even to the worlds outside our limited perceptions by ascribing certain events to myths and gods. The benefit of using this mechanistic relationship between cause and effect is to help people in the way they live their lives in those days and this hardwiring in our brains have been carried over even to this day. It has become instinctive to react this way even to seemingly unrelated event or a random event that needs some sufficient explanation to be understood by us. By virtue of previous experiences, sometimes bad experiences, Man learned by trial and error about the linearity of cause and effect through a sequencing of events. The sequence and consequence allows for the prediction of any recurrences of past events in the future and this had further cemented this attitude of associating cause to effect in the human mind. Even human actions and reactions can be ascribed to this direct relationship between cause to effect such that we can even rationalize certain human behaviors will result into a predicted outcome (Morley & Renfrew, 2010, p. 15). It can be safely said that this ability to connect cause and an effect can even be circular, that is, Man is able to associate the effect with a probable cause. It can be viewed that Man’s instinctive reaction even to random events and ascribe to them the same cause and effect relationship is nothing but an attempt to control events over which we have absolutely no control of and of which Man is entirely powerless to act or influence on. This automatic reaction even to random events is already hardwired for our survival. It is even evident in some ritualistic practices in which Man tries to obtain control on the events and the other key elements in his life by trying to circumvent this connection between causes and their effects in order for him to feel powerful enough to alter the expected outcomes. This is what we mostly see in religious and cultural practices in primitive societies, their attempts to change the natural world to explain both terrestrial and celestial phenomena. Survival Instincts – this ability to relate cause to effect and vice versa is a crucial part or element of hunter-gatherer societies. It ensure their survival by helping them determine the food supplies, such as where and when animals will converge, the places where they drink, a source of potable water and the places which are considered dangerous and thereby to avoid. The almost instinctive reaction to associate cause to effect is so ingrained to this survival instinct that even random events are given causality as an automatic reaction to the events. For example, early Man knew animals can get thirsty and so a natural place to look and wait in ambush for these animals (as a food source) would be near bodies of water such as lakes or rivers. The place to wait in ambush might likewise be thick in vegetation to afford good cover. Animals get thirsty (cause) and they would naturally converge on the lake or river (effect). It is this simple logic and reasoning that had been repeated over several generations to become an accepted truth for nomadic hunters-gatherers. The awareness, ability and tendency to look for causal relationships between natural events can greatly help in the struggle for survival. This survival instinct of using cause-and-effect relationships is the end product of the evolutionary process. It is the humans’ way of adapting to environmental conditions and the changes in those conditions. A specific natural habitat on which early Man was so dependent, required biological adaptations to meet the exigencies of survival (Fleminger, 2006, p. 42). It became a habit for man to behave this way because it threatens his survival to do otherwise. It had been carried down to this day because the human brain had already been hardwired for it. It is not very surprising that we still continue to exhibit this type of behavior even though we now live in a modern society when natural events no longer carry such vital importance to our physical survival. Unlike in early civilization, Man can now produce enough food for entire populations due to improvements in agricultural efficiency and mastery over the elements. It can be said that the human mind cannot be changed quite easily, however. This instinctive act to associate cause to effect is simply a carryover of an earlier harsher era in human existence. Biological Adaptation – the tendency to associate cause to effect is a natural result of the early human societies to be always vigilant of their surroundings as a key to their survival. Just as animals evolved over the years, humans also evolved as a response to the threats in the environment and this automatic assumption helps to understand the things around us and just the same allow us to avoid the dangers inherent in a subsistence or primitive existence. Fishes learned to breathe in water, amphibians to walk on land and birds learned how to fly. In the same manner, Man learned over the millennia to be perceptive and sensitive to the dangers in his surroundings. This tendency to associate cause and effect helps man to confront the things that challenge him daily although some events cannot be sufficiently explained by his models. The sound of an approaching tiger or giant bear presages the arrival of danger and this Man learned over the years to avoid at all costs. As a hunter, Man knew which animals he had a good chance of capturing or killing for his food supplies. Man likewise knew the limits of his physical strength for which he is no match for these wild animals. This ability to foresee an arrival of imminent danger contributes to his very survival and repeated over the centuries has become imprinted or hardwired in our brains. Its value is to be able to put two and two together to evade danger early rather than risk a confrontation with wild animals physically much stronger than Man. The hardwiring in our brains remained over succeeding generations despite subsequent changes in which Man was able to control most aspect of his environment. Man survived the harshness of Nature because he was equipped with a much larger brain and he was able to use to his good advantage. In this regard, Man overcame his physical limitations and able to control the whole Earth in the process, including almost everything in it. With so many threats confronting him and his existence almost hanging by a thread, early Man learned to trust what psychologists term as ecological validity – anything in environment has a cause and effect. To ignore or disregard them would be to imperil himself (Buss, 2005, p. 131). Moreover, this in turn leads to what is called as construct or model validity. Conclusion When a person’s very survival is at stake, it is not a proper time to question things. In this regard, an in-built bias towards causal relationships in the environment can greatly help in the struggle for survival. Life in those times was brutal and short; it was not a time to make an experiment of sorts by disregarding the dangers of deviating from the accepted state of things. An existence based on hunting and gathering was a far more expedient way to survive in said times because agricultural pursuits were seen as time-consuming (takes a long time to plant, then wait for the plants to grow and then harvest). If game and other plant food sources were readily available, then hunting and gathering makes sense only if Man knows how to protect himself and at the same knew where those food sources are. Some experts suggest agriculture came into being because of the propensity of Man to avoid the rigors and dangers of a hunter-gatherer existence (Clark & Brandt, 1984, p. 352). As it was, this avoidance is quite understandable as Man never really mastered Nature to a certain extent and dangers always lurked around the next corner or on the next bend in the mountains. Certain random events were ascribed to acts of god or a freak occurrence of Nature because a whole lifetime and several generations have consistently experienced the same patterns of the cause-and-effect relationship in our environment. This habit or tendency to view certain events in a cause-and-effect relationship was not originally in our brains but only later got hardwired into our brain’s circuitry due to the repeated occurrences which Man experienced in his daily struggle for survival. Man tries to face the future using his learned experiences through what scientists call as the evolutionary trajectories of the human mind (Carsetti, 2010, p. 255). Ascribing causal relationship to any random event is actually Man’s attempt to understand what had been rather perplexing to him. It also affords him a measure of comfort although perhaps only a false sense of security. Reference List Bettinger, R. L. (1991). Hunter-Gatherers|’ Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Publishing Corporation. Buss, D. M. (2005). The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Carsetti, A. (2010). Causality, Meaningful Complexity and Embodied Cognition. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Clark, J. D. & Brandt, S. A. (1984). From Hunters to Farmers: The Causes and Consequences of Food Production in Africa. Los Angeles, CA, USA: University of California Press. Hassler, D. M. & Wilcox, C. (2008). New Boundaries in Political Science Fiction. Columbia, SC, USA: The University of South Carolina Press. Lord, E. (2009). Science, Mind and Paranormal Experience. Raleigh, NC, USA: Lulu.com Morley, I. & Renfrew, C. (2010). The Archaeology of Measurement: Comprehending Heaven, Earth and Time in Ancient Societies. Cambridge, UK: The Cambridge University Press. Read More