By Nneka Okumazie
There’s a good chance that in the next century, or just beyond, most of the knowledge agreed, about whom hunter-gatherers were, or were about would have changed.
Not because scientists chose to be deliberately wrong, but because it is difficult to be certain of any measurement in retrospect.
Fossil records or whatever else may seem like incontrovertible evidence, but the measure of their dating and characteristics aren’t.
This is what we know based on what we used to check.
What we know, or think we know and agree to – changes with new measures and evidence.
So, why should what has changed – in the last few centuries, albeit in a similar direction, not be subject to change in another direction in the coming centuries?
There are other questions about hunter-gatherers, but one possible error is to think that going to some isolated village, or some Amazonian tribe is reflective – or similar to hunter-gatherers.
Most likely not, though the basic existence of people in those places is fascinating to those who watch or study them – they are not like the hunter-gatherers that “evolved” to current peoples.
With the said dominance of hunter-gatherers, it is unlikely that preference for expansion would have jumped – in what became major areas, and later development.
The life was basic enough – and satisfactory [without option] that to build something new may have been support-stricken, sabotaged, abandoned and strenuous beyond their imagination.
Their default option [or say epigenetics], though breakable, would have likely crept back – letting them stick to personal survival and not survival of development.
But say nothing is impossible, and they emerged to create advancement, today’s isolated tribes, supposed to be a reflection of them, continue to protest the encroachment of civilization – in different forms, showing that in the presence of an established option, they want their stay.
For hunter-gathers, there have been studies on their religion, culture and more.
There has also been chatter about how morality came without Christianity.
How about evil?
When did evil begin?
What were the causative factors?
Asking about evil is easier than the more complex question of languages – that even in some remote places, they have their own language – established beyond what could have been possible to string together as an invention, in those times.
When did evil start and why did evil survive?
The question of evil for hunter-gatherers – is vital, because they’d have been a perfect society if they didn’t.
Or maybe evil came as they emerged to develop.
If so, was it a good tradeoff for them?
The evil [or not] of hunter-gathers society is the question in their evolution.
For now, the ubiquity if evil – everywhere, says that the only reason evil has not taken over the world is not morality, or good always triumphs locution, but because of the Possessor of All.
There are often small and major stories of bitterness, hate, evil, wickedness, greed, lust, crime, envy, deception, etc. with some victories, but since many hearts think these, and often hurt about some disadvantage, it should have been a world – by far of evil, wiping out good.
But the Creator has not allowed – even though evil is substantially present.
So, why this world, why this suffering, why not just nothing, or care, or selfish pampering as wished?
Questioning the Creator – because no one alive has the full picture of everything – is like accepting that the laws of physics can’t just be broken, but seeking to break the laws of an immeasurable realm.
God is a spirit.
There are things in this world that just work – to conquer evil, some kind of triumph that would have made it impossible if it passed that time.
There is the Almighty – Jehovah, the force that keeps the good.
[Psalm 106:2, Who can utter the Mighty acts of the Lord? who can shew forth all His praise?]