So many assumptions and biases, even using moral terms like greed. This sounds very smart but to me it has no substance. The first rule of living is you want t

So many assumptions and biases, even using moral terms like greed. This sounds very smart but to me it has no substance. The first rule of living is you want to continue living. The author and anthropoligists seem to rediscover this in different ways and marvel at thr fact for some reason. They don't understand that reproduction is a means through which one continues to live. This is true for anything that lives. Comparisons with chimpanzees and all of that is silly. The core fact doesn't change. I don't get why they won't ask themselves about belief and how different beliefs contributed to development. Perhaps because in modern western culture that term is synonymous with imagination and fairytales? The tribe he described had a buffer zone and raided anyone they found threatening. Kind of like the british and japanese with their islands and invasions of the mainland whenever they felt threatened. Yet they are the most developed. Developlment patterns in the past few thounsand years are such that war and conflict is the fuel of develpment and innovation. Because humans like any creature want to live and continue to live and live well we have conflicts and to gain the upperhand in conflicts new developments are born. The question that was not answered for me after reading this post is why "300k years"? Because people could afford to just move elsewhere in most circumstances?