3(e) Second Solution: Love-Indoctrination which was Humanity’s Infancy

While love-indoctrination has already been introduced it will now be placed in its context within the story of development.

Page 139 of
Print Edition We mentioned earlier the example of a mother bear being capable of learning genetically to sacrifice her life to protect her young, which increased the opportunityExplains the
prime-mover in
human development for the continued reproduction of her genes. The behaviour is called maternalism. It is in maternalism that the opportunity existed to learn complete integration. While the maternal sacrifice cited is a case of reciprocity or gene selfishness it is also, in outward appearance, completely selfless behaviour.

The following analogy will help to explain. An oak tree and its acorn (seed) are two separate, although related, individuals. Behaviourally the ‘mother’ tree is altruistically or selflessly looking after the young acorn even though genetically the tree is acting selfishly by fostering its genes in its offspring. Imagine that the acorn had a self-learning device, a brain. During its time attached to its apparently selfless ‘mother’ tree, what would it learn? It would learn pure altruism or integrativeness or how to be utterly co-operative or selfless. It would be trained or indoctrinated in love, a process which throughout this book has been termed ‘love-indoctrination’. Further, extending the period the acorn spends on the tree before it is shed would increase the amount of love-indoctrination it would receive.

Of course it was not in a plant but in animals that the self-learning device, the brain, existed, making the process of love-indoctrination possible. It is babies who, while they are completely dependent on their mother’s apparent selflessness or generosity or love, are being indoctrinated in that selflessness or integrativeness. Having been so trained in infancy they will then behave integratively as adults. The longer they can be kept in infancy the more infants can be love-indoctrinated, the more they will practice selflessness or love or co-operation as adults and the more integrated groups of large multicellular animals will appear. After a while the ‘genes following the brain’ will reinforce this process and make love an instinctive expectation.

Page 140 of
Print Edition The ‘trick’ in love-indoctrination was that while maternalism was genetically selfish and therefore genetically encourageable, from an observing mind’s point of view it was selfless behaviour. This loophole made it possible to encourage the development of understanding in the face of instinctive blocks that would otherwise have prevented it.

How could selfish genes reinforce a non-selfish process? Primarily by encouraging maternalism itself. Maternalism became much more than mothers protecting their young, it became a case of mothers actively loving their infants. In recognition of this we now talk of ‘mother’s love’ not ‘mother’s protection’. Maternalism was genetically selfish but it trained a brain in selflessness. Once individuals appeared who were trained in selflessness that selfless behaviour would become reinforced by the genes. The genes would follow the training in love (the love-indoctrination) reinforcing it. While at times an expression of selflessness could still mean elimination of the individual involved, selfless behaviour was now appearing in the species in spite of such losses. Similarly, when the mind later went its own exhausted way during humanity’s adolescence, the genes would follow along behind, as it were, ‘reinforcing’ what was happening. Generations of humans whose genetic makeup in some way or other helped them cope were selected naturally, making our exhaustions somewhat instinctive in us today. We have been ‘bred’ to survive the pressures of the human condition. The genes would always naturally follow and reinforce any development process, in this they were not selective. The difficulty was in getting developments to occur, not in making them instinctive because that was automatic. If it were not for the ability of the genetically selfish trait of maternalism to train the minds of individuals in selflessness, selflessness would not have occurred to be reinforced genetically because selflessness is a self-eliminating trait. The genetically encourageable selfish trait of maternalism made it possible for selfless behaviour to occur and develop in the species.

Page 141 of
Print Edition As love-indoctrination began to be developed genetically, the mind also began to support the process. We self-selected integrative traits by seeking mates who were loving. These mates were those members of the group who had spent a long time in infancy and who were closer to their memory of infancy (that is, younger). The older we became the more our infancy training in love wore off. We began to recogniseExplains our
concept of Beauty this — to recognise that the younger an individual was the more integrative he or she was likely to be. We began to idolise, foster and select youthfulness because of youthfulness’s association with integrativeness. The effect, over many thousands of generations, was to retard our mental and physical development so that we stayed as infants when adult. We became infant-like adults. This explains how we came to regard neotenous features of large eyes, dome forehead and snub nose as being beautiful.

It also tells us why we lost our body hair and when this loss occurred. The physical effect was that we became infant-looking compared to our adult ape ancestors. We selected for what we now recognise as innocence. (Although later, during humanity’s adolescence, we would become upset and resentful of innocence and instead of cultivating it would seek to destroy it. The attraction of innocence to mate with becameExplains our loss
of body hair perverted. This perversion of the act of procreation that we now refer to as ‘sex’ has already been explained.) Incidentally it was bullshit (our colloquial term for evasion; swearing was often a way of ‘letting fly’ — of being honest) to claim, as some have, that cuteness developed in order to look helpless and thus evoke sympathy. We knew that nurturing was all about loving but we have had to evade this truth. We often said ‘babies are so lovable’. The truth was in the words we uttered even though we went on to deny it.

There is a marvellous illustration of the development of neoteny in an article that appeared in the April 1982 edition of the Smithsonian magazine titled Livestock-guarding dogs that wear sheep’s clothing. The authors, Lorna and Raymond Coppinger, ‘believePage 142 of
Print Edition the many breeds of domesticated dogs are derived from their common ancestral wild type by neoteny — retarding development at some juvenile stage’. The authors divide the maturation of a puppy into four stages. The first stage is characterised by such behaviour as the puppy licking its mother’s face to stimulate food delivery, some fighting over spoils with litter mates and the tendency to scurry for the den yelping if threatened. Second stage pups play with objects. The third stage is characterised by ‘stalking’ behaviour, pouncing and short chases to cut (‘head’) off a litter mate’s retreat. In the fourth, pre-adult, stage the pups start following a parent (‘heeling’) and may even participate in a hunt. The authors argue that cattle driving dogs or heelers such as Welsh Corgis and Australian Blue Heelers have had their mental and anatomical development retarded at the fourth stage. For instance they have the pricked ears characteristic of this stage in wild dogs. Collies that muster or round up sheep belong to the third ‘heading’ stage and have the characteristic half pricked or ‘tulip’ ears. Most pet breeds fall into the second stage: flop-eared, broad-headed, object players, chasers of sticks and balls. Hounds, retrievers and spaniels are retarded or ‘stuck-in’ this stage. Shaggy ‘livestock [sheep]-guarding’ dogs that stay with the flock day and night to protect them from predators are of the first type. They have the looks of fluffy puppies. They play with each other and ignore sticks and balls. They lick the faces of the sheep and their behaviour towards the sheep are the responses of a puppy in loose association [integration] with the rest of its litter. Their apparent aggressiveness — their barking — is also characteristic of this first stage. The article says ‘that in a relatively short period of time, perhaps as little as 10,000 years, the dog has adopted many shapes. Breeders continue to change these shapes and behaviour by speeding up or slowing down (retarding) the developmental rate.’

To reveal how important self-selectionExplains speed
of human
development was in human development what has been said above about the speed of the development of breeds of dogs can be comparedPage 143 of
Print Edition with a statement made by Jacob Bronowski in the book, The Ascent of Man (1973), which accompanied his TV series of the same name: ‘We have to explain the speed of human evolution over a matter of one, three, let us say five million years at most.’ Bronowski stated. ‘That is terribly fast. Natural selection simply does not act as fast as that on animal species. We, the hominids, must have supplied a form of selection of our own; and the obvious choice is sexual [mate] selection.’

So love-indoctrination’s earliest achievement was the establishment of the first totally integrated group of large multicellular organisms on earth — Childman. While humans became upset and divisive during humanity’s adolescence, we lived utterly integrated lives during humanity’s childhood, which lasted from five million years ago to two million years ago. As it says in the Bible, we were once ‘the image of God’ (Gen 1:27) and in Christ’s words: it was the time when we ‘saw God’s glory’ — a time when ‘God loved [us] before the creation of the [hurt] world’ (John 17:24) and ‘the glory before the [hurt] world began’ (John 17:5). Also the time when ‘God made mankind upright [uncorrupted] [before] men went in search of many schemes [understandings]’ (Eccl 7:29). Being trained in love as youngsters we practised it as adults, we co-operated with each other. We considered the importance of the group above the importance of ourselves. That was love-indoctrination’s first achievement.

Now to introduce its second achievement.

Love-indoctrination had one remarkable side-effect. It liberated the brain from instinctive blocks, permitting it to think clearly. With love-indoctrination occurring, truly selfless integrative thinking was at last being promoted; the mind was free to think properly, soundly, effectively and so become conscious (of the real relationship of events through time). Consciousness is the essential characteristic of mental infancy.

How did love-indoctrination overcome the instinctive blocks? What actually took place?

Page 144 of
Print Edition At the outset the brain was small; individuals had only a small amount of cortex (where information is associated) and therefore could only relate information at an elementary degree. At the same time there were instinctively installed blocks or shepherdings orientating the mind away from any deep or meaningful perceptions. At this stage these small minds were then love-indoctrinated (trained in or taught selflessness or integrativeness during infancy). So althoughEmergence of
Consciousness there may have been little unfilled cortex available what there was was being inscribed with an effective information associating network of pathways. The mind was being taught the truth, being given the opportunity to think clearly, on top of and in spite of the already installed instinctive ‘lies’ or blocks. At first, with the brain so small, this truthful ‘wiring’, this imprinting or channelling, would not have been very significant but gradually it could be developed.

If the mind had not been given this training, integrative or meaningful thoughts would not have occurred because of the blocks (against self-eliminating behaviour) that were in place. On its own the mind could not have thought meaningfully/truthfully. Such truthfulness had to be forced upon it. Lions do not naturally jump through fire but in spite of this instinctive resistance can be taught to do so by circus trainers. We are able to, and often do change or mould our own and other animals’ natural/instinctive behaviour. Many animals are unavoidably trained in love/integrativeness when they are young with their mothers and brothers and sisters. When they grow up and are forced to live alone (mostly because of the limited availability of their food source) as happens in many species, tigers and orang-utans for instance, they find it very hard to be thrown out of this love. We term this traumatic adjustment period weaning. In these situations the species did not want the integrative training but could not avoid it. The point to realise here is that the brain could be trained with love if something were there to train it — and love-indoctrination was there to train it.

Page 145 of
Print Edition So the mind was trained or ‘brain-washed’ with the ability to think in spite of the genetic blocks already installed to prevent such thinking. Of course it must be remembered that the emphasis in this early stage of the development of love-indoctrination was on the training in love not on the liberation of the ability to think — that was incidental to the need for a cooperative group member which love-indoctrination could produce. A species developing love-indoctrination needed a better love-trainable brain. It was coincidental that this love-imprinted mind also had the power to begin to reason or think or associate information effectively and consequently had the potential to eventually become conscious (of the true relationship of events through time).

The development of thought, which had been liberated accidentally, occurred only gradually. The requirements for a brain that could be trained in love weren’t the same as the requirements for a mind that could think. The great associating cortex of our brain didn’t develop strongly until thinking became a necessity in humanity’s adolescence (when we had to find understanding to defend ourselves against ignorance). Intelligence was an asset to Infantman and Childman but not a necessity.

Though the early mind was not driven or needing to think, simply by being able to it gradually started to. Chimpanzees, which are in mid-infancy today, are beginning to become conscious of the true relationship of events — are beginning to be able to think straight (as evidenced by their ability to effectively associate information, such as reasoning that by stacking boxes one on top of another it is possible to reach bananas tied to the roof of the cage). The real value, so far, of love-indoctrination to chimpanzees has been in producing the close co-operation needed for their survival. (This need for love-training for survival will be explained shortly.)

Love-indoctrination’s immediate value was in producing cooperatively trained members for the group. Only gradually did the liberated thinking power develop and only much later, whenPage 146 of
Print Edition the mind started to try to self-manage, did the instinctive integrative orientation or conscience that love-indoctrination eventually produced become of value in guiding the development of the mind’s understanding.

In order for love-indoctrination to develop there were three essential requirements. The first was that the species have the ability to look after a long-infancied, helpless infant. (In fact, to ascertain the level of intelligence of any species, we have only to find out two things: the species’ need to develop co-operation and its ability to look after a helpless infant. For instance, when calving, whales leave their polar feeding waters and travel all the way to protected inlets in warm water latitudes where they experience starving conditions. The benefit of this practice is that it allows the calves to remain in infancy as long as possible and thus develop some love-indoctrination and thus some co-operativeness. Consequently but coincidentally the whale mind has also been liberated to some extent. If whales stayed in their polar feeding grounds to breed the danger the calves would face from exposure to the harsh elements and predators would mean the calves would have to grow up much faster than they have to in protected warm water inlets. These bays are often called ‘nursery bays’ in recognition of the fact that whales use them for nurseries. The dictionary definition for nursery is ‘any place in which something is bred, nourished, or fostered’ and ‘any situation serving to foster something’. The implication is that there is more going on than just the protection of infants. The infants are being fostered, loved. Zebra foals have to be up on their legs and capable of independent flight from a predator almost as soon as they are born. Consequently the zebra species can develop little love-indoctrination, little co-operativeness and little conscious thought.)

However nothing compares with the freedom of arms when looking after a helpless infant. TheseExplains when we
learnt to walk
upright limbs, the province of primates, made it possible to keep infants in infancy for an extended period thus allowing forPage 147 of
Print Edition greater love-indoctrination, which is why the primates have been able to develop so much intelligence. Due to their arboreal heritage of armswinging, semi-upright movement through trees, their upper limbs were already partially freed from walking. This was the crucial factor in mind development. It means our ancestors would have learnt to walk upright early in this, humanity’s infancy period, because they had to use their arms to hold the increasingly late-maturing, helpless baby.

As well as the exceptional facility to look after a helpless infant, the exceptional need to develop co-operation was also required for mind development. A species had to need to be cooperative/integrative for the opportunity to develop love-indoctrination to be taken up. Not pushed by this necessity, gorillas remain comfortably hidden away in the jungle living on abundant giant celery and the other great apes are living relatively safely in forests. The exceptional need for co-operation occurred in a tree-living monkey-likeExplains why other
primates have not
developed primate (probably very similar to a fossil ape called Ramapithecus) some twelve million years ago. The cooling world climate at this time was causing the forests to shrink, forcing our Ramapithecus-like ape ancestor to abandon life in the trees and adapt to conditions on the African savannah. Unable to run fast and without sharp teeth to defend itself as other savannah-adapted species could, this ancestor of ours was forced to depend upon and therefore develop co-operation between individuals as its main means of defence and survival.

Lastly, for the process of love-indoctrination to be carried to completion, it had to be easy to leave a baby in infancy, ideal nursery conditions were required: comfortable climate and abundant food supply. (Obviously theHumanity was
matriarchal nursery conditions couldn’t be entirely comfortable since the dangers needed to require co-operation between individuals had also to exist. They had to be comfortable in every respect except for this external danger.) Only one part of our ape ancestor’s probable rangePage 148 of
Print Edition appears to have provided such luxurious conditions — the aptly described ‘Cradle of Mankind’ — the Rift Valley of Africa, near the equator. At this early stage in humanity’s lifetime, nurturing the infants was the priority concern and so throughout humanity’s infancy and childhood, from twelve million years to two million years ago, humanity was matriarchal. In this sense, women created humanity. However patriarchy was just around the corner, when humanity entered the agony of adolescence.

These maturation periods of infancy, childhood and adolescence are the evasive descriptions we have used to describe the stages of the emergence of brain understanding capability or self-realisation — specifically of self-awareness or consciousness of self (infancy) followed by self-confidenceHumanity’s stages
of maturation (childhood) followed by self-understanding or identity search (adolescence). They were to be followed by the adult stages of self-implementation, self-fulfilment and self-maturation. Once the infancy stage is completed in a species the other stages will naturally follow, although the rate of development may vary.

Infancy is the establishment of self-awareness or self-consciousness — of ‘I exist’ or ‘I am’ or ‘I’. This discovery of the ‘I’ at the centre of changing experiences was the first major result of the emergence of the ability to relate information sensibly. Prior to the advent of love-indoctrination, the landscape of understanding (of change of the relationship of events) surrounding the animal was just a blur with the mind unable to make sense of the swirling array of experiences in it. This blur had to clear a great deal for the animal’s brain (or mind or association or understanding capacity) to reason out its immediate relationship to events surrounding it, allowing the animal to effectively manipulate events, at least over the short term.

Prior to love-indoctrination the brain was a confused idiot. Compare the eyes of a cow or cat with those of a human baby. In the former you see this frustrated inability to relate — to understand — to think clearly; from the baby’s eyes you can see the infant is conscious or aware of its world. The infant thinks and thePage 149 of
Print Edition thinking is starting to make sense to it. It is starting to register the relationship of events surrounding it. It is starting to understand.

The ability to learn to relate events beyond the immediate, over the much longer term — ultimately for all time — was to develop later on. These first understandings of immediate change meant the animal was recognising its relationship to its immediate changing surroundings. This emergence of self-consciousness, this awareness or understanding of self in the world, happened during humanity’s infancy. This capacity made it possible for the animal to effectively manipulate events in the short term, such as our chimp reasoning how it can reach the bananas and human babies who now learn that by hitting a rattle they can cause a noise.

Gorillas and chimpanzees have been taught to ‘talk’ with sign language but while they reveal an awareness of identity or recognition of themselves in the world, their level of language development is only that of an infant. W.H. Thorpe, in an Encyclopedia Britannica entry, Learning, Animal, discusses the sign language used by Washoe, a female chimpanzee, with Roger, her trainer. Washoe could sign ‘you Roger me Washoe go out’. ‘After four years of study,’ Thorpe says of this, ‘the chimpanzee (Washoe) seemed unable to use signs for such combining words as “and”, “for”, “with”, or “to”. It is significant, however, that words of this type are noticeably absent in the early sentences of young children. Hence, although Washoe’s achievements are not those of a fully articulate adult human her earliest two-sign combinations were comparable to the earliest two-word combinations of children.’ Chimpanzees as a species are in mental infancy or are equivalent to infant humanity.

The ability to self-adjust (a primitive nervous system such as exists in planaria worms is capable of self-adjustment) is different to self-management (of which humans are capable) and the insecure self-management which humans have been practising is different to the secure self-management we will be capable of now we have found understanding. Self-management, thePage 150 of
Print Edition ability to manage events, emerged with consciousness. However, it is one thing to control a rattle — to manage immediate events — but quite another to properly manage or control the destiny of the earth — to manage events over the long term — to be secure in our management of ourselves and our world. Before we could be secure competent managers we needed to know the meaning of existence and be able to conform to it.

In adolescence we faced the responsibility of having control of events over our entire lifetime and the lifetime or destiny of our planet. This did not mean that we exercised meaningful secure control, merely that we had the ability to control. We had gained sufficient understanding of the relationship of events to manipulate them but not enough to manipulate them securely, which required a complete understanding of existence. The difference is between being able to do whatever we like and being able to do whatever is meaningful. This transition from free will to responsible free will was the agonising journey of adolescence.

In humanity’s infancy the newly acquired ability to relate events, the liberation of understanding from instinctive contradictions, conferred the freedom toExplains free will practice doing so. Our infancy saw the first displays of mental independence, the first displays of consciousness, reason, free will.

Despite these displays, the infant was still totally dependent on its instinctive orientation or knowhow for safe passage through life. Infantman’s developing integrative instincts or love-training or mother equivalent looked after Infantman. From that safe shelter Infantman was able to experiment a little on her own without endangering her life — was able to begin to play — was able to begin to pretend to be an adult. Free will in infancy mostly manifested itself in a realisation of self; it marked the emergence of consciousness or awareness of self. It was not until childhood that all-out implementation of mental independence or playing in earnest began.

(Note ‘her’ and not ‘his’ is used because humanity’s infancy and childhood was matriarchal or female-role prominent, soPage 151 of
Print Edition that ‘her’ is slightly more appropriate. Childman and not childwoman is used as it is our abbreviation for childhumanity. ‘They’ instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’ could have been used however, as has been explained, we are now unevasively talking of the species as an entity, so the singular pronoun is more appropriate.)

To summarise to this point. Love-indoctrination’s earliest achievement was the development of the first totally integrated specie society or group of larger multicellular animals. Its second achievement was the liberation of the mind to think or relate information effectively.

Now its third achievement has to be introduced. This was that it correctly orientated the mind. Love-indoctrination gave us our conscience.

As explained already it was maternalism, the behaviour that trained an infant in selflessness, that was directly genetically encourageable. Women acquired what we now refer to as their ‘strong maternal instinct’ during the period of humanity’s development when maternalism was being encouraged genetically. These strong maternal instincts were more than just for the need to look after helpless infants as we have evasively claimed, they were for training the minds of our infants in love. Being able to encourage love by encouraging maternalism opened the way to developing instinctive reinforcement for love. A loophole in the process of refining genetically had been found: an instinctive trait that was selfish and thus genetically encourageable but which produced love or pure selflessness. All that was left was for the whole process to become instinctively reinforced — as was now possible — and love or integrativeness would become an instinctive expectation in us. That happened. The result was our integratively orientated conscience.

Love-indoctrination nurtured a mind into existence, liberated thinking and orientated that thinking. It gave us both consciousness and our conscience. It has been the most powerful process in all humanity’s development.

Our conscience would be vital during humanity’s adolescence. It was our conscience which correctly orientated the mindPage 152 of
Print Edition so that when it set out in search of understanding, it had a perfectly accurate guidance mechanism to help it and make the search possible. Of course a great tragedy — the greatest tragedy humanity has known — lay in the way our conscience guided us. When we made mistakes in self-management our conscience implied that we were bad. It had no sympathy for our necessary search for understanding. While we needed our conscience’s guidance we didn’t like the way it gave it. We didn’t like having to live with an unjust sense of guilt. We needed guidance but we did not deserve criticism. The point here however is that, upsetting as it was, we could never have found understanding without our conscience. If some other phenomenon had liberated the mind it could have started thinking but without an orientation towards integration could never have completed that thinking and found meaning. (Of course nothing but love or integration indoctrination could have liberated the mind but the dual effects of love-indoctrination become clear in this imagined situation.)

Without our conscience to guide us during our adolescent search for understanding we would have practised the inevitable initial misunderstandings of selfishness without constraint, the result being that we would soon have destroyed our society or group. Without its conscience, humanity would never have had the opportunity to find understanding, to find itself.

What this means is that, while it is true that if it weren’t for the instinctive blocks to effective thinking the brain acquired long before it became purely human (or even primate), all animals could have developed consciousness, they could not have gone on to find understanding without first acquiring a conscience to guide their search.

The fourth and final achievement of the process of love-indoctrination was to free the hands to hold tools and implements. The more love-indoctrination developed, the longer infants were kept in infancy, the more they had to be held, the more upright we had to become in order to hold them. This releasing of the hands would prove vital later on when our mindPage 153 of
Print Edition needed to express itself because it provided a means for that expression. The mind could direct the hands and the hands could manipulate the world. (Interestingly, anthropologists called the first variety of Homo or intelligent man Homo habilis, which means ‘handyman’.) A fully conscious mind on a whale would be frustrated through its inability to express itself; conversely, the free upper limbs of a kangaroo are useless without a conscious mind. But couple a conscious mind to hands and a very creative force emerges.

In all, love-indoctrination was a truly extraordinary opportunity for God or development and of all the species we humans were the ones sufficiently pre-adapted or suited to develop it.

Due to the development of love-indoctrination our ape ancestor, Infantman, genetically learnt completely integrative instinctive reinforcements. The great apes and baboons are currently about half-way through the infancy period of mental development. Recent primate studies, tainted by the precepts of sociobiology, seek to hide or evade the extraordinary integration present in these species because of the implicit criticism it makes of divisive humanity. Earlier primate studies, being more naive of this threat, revealed the integration. (Incidentally, in all areas of inquiry there has been an optimum period of enlightenment where we had gained significant knowledge but had yet to become too sophisticated [in evasion] or aware of the dangerous/hurtful/critical implications of that knowledge or insight.) Eugene Marais, who has already been introduced, was the first to undertake prolonged field studies of primates back in the 1920’s. In his books, The Soul of the Ape (not published until 1969) and My Friends the Baboons (1939), he stressed just how integrative baboons are.

For instance, there is this passage from My Friends the Baboons: ‘The females have certain rights which are scrupulously upheld by the whole troop. The males must protect and defend them in all circumstances. [This indicates how it was the women’s role of nurturing that was the priority concern at this stage — how the situation was matriarchal.] If danger threatens, the full-grownPage 154 of
Print Edition males form a vanguard, and they will often sacrifice their lives to prevent an assault on the females and little ones [Note the male’s role as group protectors]. The wife is always entitled to a share of the food her husband gathers.’ Note the pure selflessness or altruism here. To quote the Bible, ‘Greater love has no-one than that one lay down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13). (Of course we must not forget the greater truth that adolescent humanity’s human’s preparedness to lose/corrupt themselves in order that the true and beautiful world might one day be permanently established on earth was also an act of unconditional self-sacrifice. While we often appeared selfish, the greater truth was we were being selfless and sacrificing our life for a greater good.) Dian Fossey’s studies of the mountain gorilla (see her book Gorillas in the Mist, 1983), although in places tainted with sociobiology, also reveal the strong relationship between nurturing and integrativeness which is the process of love-indoctrination (although of course she was not aware of the significance of the process or even aware that what she was describing was a process.)

In terms of development, baboons and apes are where humanity was about eight million years ago. By five million years ago humanity had perfectly refined integrative instincts that were even more integrative than these just described for baboons. For instance, among both baboons and gorillas there is still a residual amount of as yet uncontained sexual opportunism, such as infanticide (where a newlyInfanticide dominant male will kill the offspring of his predecessor, bringing the mother of the murdered infant back into season earlier than would otherwise occur, allowing the new dominant male to mate and reproduce his genes more frequently), and friction within the group between males competing for mating opportunities, creating the need for some dominance hierarchy.