[Theory] During the dawn of human civilization, death was prevalent and survival was not guaranteed

[TAW122]

Note: This is just a discussion and possible speculation of where pro-lifers/anti-choicers got their stance and roots from. This does NOT excuse nor condone their imposition, intervention, or infringement on our bodily autonomy, personal freedom, or civil liberties!

Over the past years or so, I have always wondered about the origin of where the pro-lifers' views come from, and often, I go far enough back in time to the dawn of civilization. I'm referring to hundreds of thousands of years ago (maybe even further than that, but basically at the beginning of humanity itself). Anyways, this is just from my speculation of perhaps where pro-lifers formed their views. During that era of time, ancient humans had to face off with many challenges and survival itself was not guaranteed as they did not have the means of technology, knowledge, or resources that modern day humanity has. These challenges include, but are not limited to starvation, disease, natural predators (large wild animals that will devour or kill other species, as part of the 'circle of life' – nature itself is cruel; survival of the fittest, etc.), and of course, their environment, the elements. Assuming that even being able to stay alive was a challenge, and death was just around every corner. Granted, even though death was very common and lifespans were short, death itself was unpleasant too at the time. The manner of death, depending on what kind of death was horrific, either dying from disease and illness (likely painful and there are no modern medicines to treat it, and medical care was really bad), getting mauled to death by a large animal is incredibly painful and scary, and of course, starvation due to lack of food or sustenance, also uncomfortable as there are no pain killers back then (at least not as effective as the ones today).

I won't delve too much into this as there are many other threads that already discuss about this and I'm simply just going to be brief about this important factor. This of course, is not even considering our biological instinct of self-preservation, aka the 'survival instinct' (not just limited to the human species, but of ALL living organisms), which was formed throughout humanity's evolution from the start of time (of when humanity existed). Due to this instinct, it only reinforces the pro-lifers/anti-choicers' stance in preserving life at all costs, even at the expense of bodily autonomy and freedom from unwanted suffering. Furthermore, as the human population grew and became more organized, leaders and hierarchies start to emerge, from the tribal leader, the elder of the village, then to monarchy, and eventually to republics and democracies (modern governments of the modern world). Then with various institutions, like the church, religion, and eventually psychiatry itself only serve to reinforce the pro-life stance, but I digress.

So in conclusion, to all pro-lifers in the modern world: I'm sorry to hear that you and your ancestors (even as far back as the beginning of time and dawn of civilization had a hard time and was focused on survival. However, this does not entitle you to satisfy your atavistic morals and expect others to suffer just to validate your beliefs! It is incredibly unethical, unjust, and immoral to keep someone alive against their will just as to not offend the pro-lifers' sensibilities and moral code. In other words, putting pro-lifers or anti-choicers values before that of the person who is suffering without any regard for said person(s)' interests or wishes. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think my theory and speculation seems to be on point? Do you think this could also be a strong, possible factor in perhaps where pro-lifers, anti-choicers formed their stance and feel the need to validate, defend, and impose it to ALL other fellow human beings (including those who oppose or don't share the same beliefs)?

 

[DEATH IS FREEDOM]

We are programmed to live, that is why the society forces us to live.

 

[wisteria3]

Yeah, aren't you basically describing evolution and survival of the fittest? Life has always been hard (way before civilization, basically going back to the origins of life itself). Individuals with the most advantages towards living were able to survive and reproduce. Thus the adaptations best suited to survival were passed on in the gene pool. So that's why the survival instinct evolved in the first place - it kept people alive.

Let me know if I'm missing something in your argument, but to me it's true because it's basically the theory of evolution.

 

[ringo99]

Death was more widespread but in a lot of cases slow and excruciatingly painful. So no I'd rather not go back to those times

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

It's interesting though because on the other hand, the fact that death was so prevalent in the past meant that people were very well-acquainted with it. These days, it's not hard to find people who only have tangential experiences with death, like losing a distant relative or something. So when people like that eventually lose someone close to them, like a parent, it hits that much harder. And when death is such a rare and highly distressing experience, it becomes easier to maintain the fiction that "every life is precious" and try to prevent death as much as possible.

 

[TAW122]

We are programmed to live, that is why the society forces us to live.

This is true especially after civilization and humanity has become more complex throughout time. The difference would be the institutions in power, at first, it was the tribe/elder leader of a village, then it was religion and the church, then monarchy, and finally, the State (especially in modern times).

Yeah, aren't you basically describing evolution and survival of the fittest? Life has always been hard (way before civilization, basically going back to the origins of life itself). Individuals with the most advantages towards living were able to survive and reproduce. Thus the adaptations best suited to survival were passed on in the gene pool. So that's why the survival instinct evolved in the first place - it kept people alive.

Let me know if I'm missing something in your argument, but to me it's true because it's basically the theory of evolution.

Yes, what you said is true, and paradoxically, even if there were people in the past who supported bodily autonomy and pro-choice, sadly, those people are long gone because they weren't able to pass their genes to the next generation (this thread I wrote almost 2 years ago basically describes this dilemma that we pro-choicers face). So essentially, over the course of history since pro-lifers and anti-choicers continue their progeny and pass on their genes to the next generation (and so forth) until modern day, objectively, we would see mostly pro-lifers, anti-choicers as they are the ones who made it generation after generation as their numbers do not deplete, but rather increase through procreation. Anyways, yes I think you are on point about my argument of how pro-lifers and anti-choicers got their views (or at least one part of it).

Death was more widespread but in a lot of cases slow and excruciatingly painful. So no I'd rather not go back to those times

I agree, and while we live in a modern world with many copes and much better means of escape, the problem is the ability to source them, hide them, overcome one's own SI, and of course, executing said means correctly as to not fail and end up with everlasting damage.

It's interesting though because on the other hand, the fact that death was so prevalent in the past meant that people were very well-acquainted with it. These days, it's not hard to find people who only have tangential experiences with death, like losing a distant relative or something. So when people like that eventually lose someone close to them, like a parent, it hits that much harder. And when death is such a rare and highly distressing experience, it becomes easier to maintain the fiction that "every life is precious" and try to prevent death as much as possible.

This is an interesting take and yes, I believe that the more time we spend in sentience, the greater the chances we have to experience someone who we know, either close or distant pass away. With regards to death being rarer nowadays and people becoming more sheltered when it comes to these natural events (all living things will eventually expire, given enough time -- it would just be the manner in which one passes that will differ, be it self-inflicted, natural causes, or caused by other entities), yes I think this plays a part in why people have the views that they do and view life as precious. Then coupled in with the social conditioning by the institutions in the world, their fellow peers, their family, and others, it only reinforces these dogmatic beliefs that life should be preserved at all costs. I do hope that the death with dignity and bodily autonomy crowd eventually becomes more mainstream and expanded to include more people and not just those who are terminally ill or severely chronically ill. Though the next step in expansion (at least in the US) should be for those who are not terminally ill, but are severely, chronically disabled.

 

[EyesOfNight]

Individuals with the most advantages towards living were able to survive and reproduce. Thus the adaptations best suited to survival were passed on in the gene pool.

One small mistake. It's not the creatures with genes that are best suited but those that are just sufficient. It doesn't matter how well a creature can survive and how much better it can survive then others. As long as it survives it gets passed on.