Unifying the camp

With the camp came a sense of home and possessiveness. The family group the apes travelled in eventually realized the things needed for them to stay in one place for a while (access to the best plants, nearby water, animals nearby, good weather) and the different groups would fight for the land, even die for it. The webmaster thought this was against evolution (people willingly dying for a thing instead of just giving it up) but I disagree. Don’t parents in every species die to protect their children? By fighting, and yes even dying, for the camp they assured their offspring would be cared for well into the future by staying on the best land around. Now that the group had a stable home (sorta, they were still nomads who moved at least with the seasons and travelled with the herds), they were also getting united. In ape communities, they travel in smaller groups and most have multiple partners. That meant that the males could have any number of children to carry on their genes (evolution’s main purpose) and the females could mate with whoever was around. As we know, that didn’t last. However, males were individuals. They didn’t tend to mix well with groups. This worked well in hunting where most times it is a single male stalking an animal or it is a group of males some distance from each other herding a few animals somewhere. However, it doesn’t work so well in camps. We know that females often travel with other females and trade responsibilities for childrearing. (The pregnant ones that can’t move so well or the old ones can watch the ones that can’t walk or the rambunctious children while the mother gets dinner.) If the males want to get together with a female, it tends to help if the male is where the females gather, which in this case is around the central fire instead of a smaller one the males would sit around. (Even males now a days know that factor so it’s not too hard to realize some smart male figured it out centuries ago and the others decided to get in on his action.)