No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Rome was not built in one day: Underlying biological and cognitive factors responsible for the emergence of agriculture and ultrasociality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2016
Abstract
Agriculture represented a major transition in human evolution, but the appearance of ultrasociality must have included previous steps. We argue that ultrasociality would not have suddenly emerged with agriculture, but rather developed from pre-existing cognitive and social mechanisms. Discussions must include necessary depth about the historical origins of human ultrasociality, and agriculture's aftereffects on large-scale social organization.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
Basu, S. & Waymire, G. B. (2006) Recordkeeping and human evolution. Accounting Horizons
20:201–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N. & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013) Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences
17:89–98.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Benítez-Burraco, A. (2014) The shape of the human language-ready brain. Frontiers in Psychology
5:282. (Online publication). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, J.-K. & Bowles, S. (2007) The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science
318:636–40.Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C. (2014) The gradual evolution of language. Humana.Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies
27:39–60.Google Scholar
Dahlman, S., Ljungqvist, P. & Johannesson, M. (2007) Reciprocity in young children. Working Paper, Stockholm School of Economics. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/hastef/0674.html
Google Scholar
Drummond, H. (2006) Dominance in vertebrate broods and litters. The Quarterly Review of Biology
81:3–32.Google Scholar
Fry, D. & Söderberg, P. (2013) Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and implications for the origins of war. Science
341:270–73.Google Scholar
Guilmet, G. M. (1977) The evolution of tool-using and tool-making behaviour. Man
12:33–47.Google Scholar
Hare, B. (2007) From nonhuman to human mind what changed and why?
Current Directions in Psychological Science
16:60–64.Google Scholar
Hay, D. F. & Cook, K. V. (2007) The transformation of prosocial behavior from infancy to childhood. In: Socioemotional development in the toddler years, ed. Brownell, C. & Kopp, C. B., pp. 100–31. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. (2004) Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
53(1):3–35.Google Scholar
Holekamp, K. E. & Smale, L. (1991) Dominance acquisition during mammalian social development: The “inheritance” of maternal rank. American Zoologist
31:306–17.Google Scholar
House, B. R., Silk, J. B., Henrich, J., Barrett, H. C., Scelza, B., Boyette, A., Hewlett, B., McElreath, R. & Laurence, S. (2013) The ontogeny of prosocial behavior across diverse societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
110:14586–91.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (2005) Evolutionary context of human development: The cooperative breeding model. In: Attachment and bonding: A new synthesis, ed. Carter, C. S., Anhert, L., Grossmann, K. E., Hrdy, S. B., Lamb, M. E., Porges, S. W. & Sachser, N., pp. 9–32. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kenward, B. & Dahl, M. (2011) Preschoolers distribute scarce resources according to the moral valence of recipients' previous actions. Developmental Psychology
47:1054–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahaney, R. A. (2014) Lithic analysis as a cognitive science: A framework. Lithic Technology
39:173–89.Google Scholar
Nóbrega, V. A. & Miyagawa, S. (2015) The precedence of syntax in the rapid emergence of human language in evolution as defined by the integration hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology
6:271. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00271.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. & Highfield, R. (2011) SuperCooperators: Altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed. The Free Press/Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Sebastián-Enesco, C., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V. & Colmenares, F. (2013) Two and a half-year-old children are prosocial even when their partners are not. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
116:186–98.Google Scholar
Smith, E. A., Hill, K., Marlowe, F., Nolin, D., Wiessner, P., Gurven, M., Bowles, S., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., Hertz, T. & Bell, A. (2010) Wealth transmission and inequality among hunter-gatherers. Current Anthropology
51:19–34.Google Scholar
Thorpe, I. J. (2003) Anthropology, archaeology, and the origin of warfare. World Archaeology
35(1):145–65. doi: 10.1080/0043824032000079198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
28:675–91.Google Scholar
Warneken, F. & Tomasello, M. (2006) Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science
311:1301–1303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warneken, F. & Tomasello, M. (2009) The roots of human altruism. British Journal of Psychology
100:455–71.Google Scholar
Warneken, F. & Tomasello, M. (2013) Parental presence and encouragement do not influence helping in young children. Infancy
18:345–68.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S., Van Vugt, M. & O'Gorman, R. (2008) Multilevel selection theory and major evolutionary transitions implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science
17:6–9.Google Scholar
Target article
The economic origins of ultrasociality
Related commentaries (26)
Agriculture and the energy-complexity spiral
Agriculture increases individual fitness
Autonomy in ants and humans
Biological markets explain human ultrasociality
Contributions of family social structure to the development of ultrasociality in humans
Differences in autonomy of humans and ultrasocial insects
Differentiation of individual selves facilitates group-level benefits of ultrasociality
Does ultrasociality really exist – and is it the best predictor of human economic behaviors?
Human agricultural economy is, and likely always was, largely based on kinship – Why?
Human and ant social behavior should be compared in a very careful way to draw valid parallels
Humans are ultrasocial and emotional
Laying the foundation for evonomics
Malthus redux, and still blind in the same eye
On the effectiveness of multilevel selection
Rome was not built in one day: Underlying biological and cognitive factors responsible for the emergence of agriculture and ultrasociality
Social insects, merely a “fun house” mirror of human social evolution
The continuing evolution of ultrasocial economic organization
The convergent and divergent evolution of social-behavioral economics
The day of reckoning: Does human ultrasociality continue?
The similarity and difference between ant and human ultrasocieties: From the viewpoint of scaling laws
Ultrasociality and the division of cognitive labor
Ultrasociality and the sexual divisions of labor
Ultrasociality without group selection: Possible, reasonable, and likely
Ultrasociality, class, threat, and intentionality in human society
Ultrasociality: When institutions make a difference
“If it looks like a duck…” – why humans need to focus on different approaches than insects if we are to become efficiently and effectively ultrasocial
Author response
Disengaging from the ultrasocial economy: The challenge of directing evolutionary change