It didn't hurt. It's 150 on the low end and 'man' is quite close to the baboon, relatively speaking.
Sort of, but not quite.
You could make a good case that we're not that far off from baboons, since basically we fit on the same curve according to Dunbar. There's a good case to be made for our being basically just primates with bigger brains, rather than something qualitatively difference in any aspect relevant to group size. We can agree about that very quickly.
"Not quite" in that what Dunbar actually postulates isn't one number, but a curve. The 150 is roughly Dunbar's number for _humans_. The number for baboons is much smaller. Baboon groups are at Dunbar's number for baboons, which is of course smaller than Dunbar's number for humans. So really that baboon groups are smaller than 150, is really more confirmation there than an objection.
I understand your confusion. Let me be clear. What I seek is not a "replacement" in terms of your level of intelligence, what I seek is a learnng device for those not as fortunate. Something for the average person. I seek something to serve as a bridge. Something akin to inspiring a child to open his mind to the awesomeness of higher math, or brain-shaking philosophy.
I had understood that much, but up to this point you talk about means rather than about the goal. The goal is however what I was asking about, since that's what will have a massive influence on what replacement is best.
E.g., if I give a caveman a replacement for a rock, the more important question is what end-goal will that rock be used for. If it's for a hunting weapon, then giving him a gun or bow may be the right replacement. If it's for pounding wild grains, then maybe a mortar and pestle is best. If he wants to hammer sticks into the ground with it for traps, then maybe he really needs a hammer. Etc.
You get the idea.
In short, an educational tool that soothes fears and informs them that today's realities do not negate the logic that holds sturdy the foundation of morality.
Ah, morality. Now we have an actual goal, though it's still a bit fuzzy for me to see exactly what kind of solution you need. Remember, I can't see what's in your head, so you'll have to tell me all the details like I'm a small child.
Ok, so what does religion do there, that "being nice to others will make others be nice to you and maybe even help you" (a.k.a., the most simplified form of enlightened self-interest) doesn't?
And for that matter, if religion is so awesome for telling people to be nice, why did we need to _also_ pump children full of moralizing tales like the true story of the woman who got free surgery because she gave a glass of milk to a thirsty stranger? Could it be that we were already putting more of the thrust behind the (over-simplified) enlightened self-interest than behind "be good because Jesus sees you", and were already expecting more from the former than from the latter?
And was fear of god actually doing much, or do we get more out of, say, the rule of the law than out of fear of divine punishment? It seems to me like the most religious times (say, the middle ages) were the times where criminality was the highest. What really made a dent was getting an increasingly working justice system, and it worked in spite of the decline in religious belief. It seems to me that basically "there's a high probability you'll be caught and go to PMITA state prison for 20 to life" does a lot more to deter criminals than "you'll burn in hell for it."
Furthermore, do we really need to tell people there's an unchanging morality, even as a way to soothe fears? While the basic instincts and needs of humans have remained largely the same, the way we organize ourselves and what is now allowed, have changed a lot.
E.g., at one time Aristotle considered slavery not only normal and an integral part of the family, but saw it as a failure of barbarians that they don't distinguish between slaves and free men. (Or for that matter between women and men when it came to who has what rights.) And heck it's even sanctioned by the Bible. Nowadays it seems to me like we do things differently, and we like it this way.
E.g., at one point homosexuality was all but mandatory in Greece, but the fundies would be the first to balk at the notion that that should still be the case.
E.g., at one point we considered children of 7 to be capable of giving informed consent for marriage. (No, really, major church figures argued that in the middle ages.) Juliet was 13 and is presented as almost an old maid. Etc. But almost everyone would want to tar and feather you if you even as much as hinted at that morality being invariant.
So, really, do we need to tell anyone that there's some invariant? Why can't we tell them something like, "we, humans have done a good job so far at making the rules and laws that we need, and doing an increasingly better job of it so far -- with the odd exception, of course -- so we'll probably continue to do so"?
I mean, seriously, whether it's among primitive tribes (and you yourself make that claim at that end of the spectrum stronger than I ever did) or the USA or something in between, anthropology and history offer ample proof that people always figured out ways to live with each other. And in fact, the less you have a grip of some religion telling them that any other system than what it prescribes is a priori evil, the more people seem to gradually figure out systems that are better for everyone. Isn't that enough of a soothing and educational thought? Just asking.
I realize it is an absurd task, but I am not afraid. I am furiously committed. I concede that in my fury I may have come across as blurred - for that I apologize.
But if you realize it's an absurd task, then surely you can't claim an epic fail if someone doesn't do the absurd
