what might have been the very first conspiracy ever, amongst humans, the very first humans, and of the broader animal world, or of organic life

of course conspiracy has a dictionary definition, but how useful would that be to considering the very first conspiracy

nobody can know of any particular example that is likely to be the very first conspiracy, it’s somewhere way back in time, way back in the past, but if you pushed your crystal ball to near breaking point, what might it show

transition said:

what might have been the very first conspiracy ever, amongst humans, the very first humans, and of the broader animal world, or of organic life

of course conspiracy has a dictionary definition, but how useful would that be to considering the very first conspiracy

nobody can know of any particular example that is likely to be the very first conspiracy, it’s somewhere way back in time, way back in the past, but if you pushed your crystal ball to near breaking point, what might it show

Usurpers to the clan chief sowing discontent…

Probably some early gregarious primate troop in which several subordinate males sneak attacked the leader in order to drive him out.

It’s well documented that many primates deliberately deceive each other (including capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees) for personal gain.

I should think the ongoing struggles for higher social status amongst chimps and other primates often involve deceit on a scale that could be regarded as conspiracy, as individuals recruit allies against those they wish to challenge.

the other part of my question, alluded to, is the possibility conspiracies need not be originated by more than one person undertaking a plan or planning on whatever secretly, that a conspiracy could happen in just one mind, be internal, and further various attributes of biology might qualify as conspiratorial

it sounds daft maybe because it deviates from the typical definition, but really what’s the chances of any conspiracy if there weren’t types that didn’t qualify, the suggestion being that people focus on what obviously qualifies, satisfies the common definition, but really they may be mini conspiracies, subordinate even

now, to the question of intent and actions of doing something unlawful or harmful, something bad

are all conspiracies likely to be unlawful?

very unlikely i’d expect

are all conspiracies likely to be harmful?

that’d depend how harmful is defined, the act of defining whatever as harmful, that way, for that purpose

so i’m thinking there is perhaps a class of conspiracies that don’t qualify at all based on regular definitions, the regular concept, or constructions

transition said:

what might have been the very first conspiracy ever, amongst humans, the very first humans, and of the broader animal world, or of organic life

of course conspiracy has a dictionary definition, but how useful would that be to considering the very first conspiracy

nobody can know of any particular example that is likely to be the very first conspiracy, it’s somewhere way back in time, way back in the past, but if you pushed your crystal ball to near breaking point, what might it show

Google dictionary. Conspiracy.
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Take ‘harmful’. Definitely chimps engage in such actions. One I can specifically think of in a polygamous troop is mother/wife and daughter conspiring together to kill the child of another mother/wife.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

what might have been the very first conspiracy ever, amongst humans, the very first humans, and of the broader animal world, or of organic life

of course conspiracy has a dictionary definition, but how useful would that be to considering the very first conspiracy

nobody can know of any particular example that is likely to be the very first conspiracy, it’s somewhere way back in time, way back in the past, but if you pushed your crystal ball to near breaking point, what might it show

Google dictionary. Conspiracy.
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Take ‘harmful’. Definitely chimps engage in such actions. One I can specifically think of in a polygamous troop is mother/wife and daughter conspiring together to kill the child of another mother/wife.

conspiracies existed way back even before there was a concept of conspiracy, and it could be said they existed before a concept of harm, possibly some origins of the sensations of fear and anxiety in that latter

if that idea is right, then i’d expect of modern times, since harm has been thoroughly defined (has a fixed common meaning), that some adjustments have been made to what qualifies as harm to accommodate the working concept and definition of conspiracy, which would render the very first conspiracy a largely inconceivable proposition, a person would be limited to the more contemporary construction, or notions

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

what might have been the very first conspiracy ever, amongst humans, the very first humans, and of the broader animal world, or of organic life

of course conspiracy has a dictionary definition, but how useful would that be to considering the very first conspiracy

nobody can know of any particular example that is likely to be the very first conspiracy, it’s somewhere way back in time, way back in the past, but if you pushed your crystal ball to near breaking point, what might it show

Google dictionary. Conspiracy.
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Take ‘harmful’. Definitely chimps engage in such actions. One I can specifically think of in a polygamous troop is mother/wife and daughter conspiring together to kill the child of another mother/wife.

conspiracies existed way back even before there was a concept of conspiracy, and it could be said they existed before a concept of harm, possibly some origins of the sensations of fear and anxiety in that latter

if that idea is right, then i’d expect of modern times, since harm has been thoroughly defined (has a fixed common meaning), that some adjustments have been made to what qualifies as harm to accommodate the working concept and definition of conspiracy, which would render the very first conspiracy a largely inconceivable proposition, a person would be limited to the more contemporary construction, or notions

That’s why I distinguished between “harmful” and “illegal”.
“Harmful” is a term defined by modern morality, but which existed before morality existed.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

what might have been the very first conspiracy ever, amongst humans, the very first humans, and of the broader animal world, or of organic life

of course conspiracy has a dictionary definition, but how useful would that be to considering the very first conspiracy

nobody can know of any particular example that is likely to be the very first conspiracy, it’s somewhere way back in time, way back in the past, but if you pushed your crystal ball to near breaking point, what might it show

Google dictionary. Conspiracy.
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Take ‘harmful’. Definitely chimps engage in such actions. One I can specifically think of in a polygamous troop is mother/wife and daughter conspiring together to kill the child of another mother/wife.

This is atypical of females in general, mostly men kill their step children from a, at basic level, evolutionary perspective.. women do not tend to kill step or other children.

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

what might have been the very first conspiracy ever, amongst humans, the very first humans, and of the broader animal world, or of organic life

of course conspiracy has a dictionary definition, but how useful would that be to considering the very first conspiracy

nobody can know of any particular example that is likely to be the very first conspiracy, it’s somewhere way back in time, way back in the past, but if you pushed your crystal ball to near breaking point, what might it show

Google dictionary. Conspiracy.
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Take ‘harmful’. Definitely chimps engage in such actions. One I can specifically think of in a polygamous troop is mother/wife and daughter conspiring together to kill the child of another mother/wife.

This is atypical of females in general, mostly men kill their step children from a, at basic level, evolutionary perspective.. women do not tend to kill step or other children.

In Australia, when a child is killed by a parent or step parent, there’s a 50% chance it was the mother.

dv said:

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Google dictionary. Conspiracy.
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Take ‘harmful’. Definitely chimps engage in such actions. One I can specifically think of in a polygamous troop is mother/wife and daughter conspiring together to kill the child of another mother/wife.

This is atypical of females in general, mostly men kill their step children from a, at basic level, evolutionary perspective.. women do not tend to kill step or other children.

In Australia, when a child is killed by a parent or step parent, there’s a 50% chance it was the mother.

A six-month-old baby was killed earlier this week in what is suspected to be a murder-suicide. Police are investigating whether the child was killed by its father, after their bodies were found in a car on the Sunshine Coast.

At least one child in Australia is killed by a parent each fortnight, according to a report into filicide released by the Australian Institute of Criminology this week. Filicide is a general term referring to the killing of a child by a parent or parent equivalent – which in Australia includes the custodial parent, non-custodial parents and step-parents.

The report shows that between 2000-01 and 2011-12 there were 238 recorded incidents of filicide in Australia, with 260 offenders involved in these incidents. Males constituted 52% (124) of offenders and females 48% (114).

https://theconversation.com/why-do-parents-kill-their-children-the-facts-about-filicide-in-australia-111338

dv said:

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Google dictionary. Conspiracy.
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Take ‘harmful’. Definitely chimps engage in such actions. One I can specifically think of in a polygamous troop is mother/wife and daughter conspiring together to kill the child of another mother/wife.

This is atypical of females in general, mostly men kill their step children from a, at basic level, evolutionary perspective.. women do not tend to kill step or other children.

In Australia, when a child is killed by a parent or step parent, there’s a 50% chance it was the mother.

Parent yes.. not step parent.

Arts said:

dv said:

Arts said:

This is atypical of females in general, mostly men kill their step children from a, at basic level, evolutionary perspective.. women do not tend to kill step or other children.

In Australia, when a child is killed by a parent or step parent, there’s a 50% chance it was the mother.

Parent yes.. not step parent.

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you’d said. MMC.

dv said:

Arts said:

dv said:

In Australia, when a child is killed by a parent or step parent, there’s a 50% chance it was the mother.

Parent yes.. not step parent.

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you’d said. MMC.

Am I allowed to point out that mostly both women and men do not kill their children, even if they are step children?

dv said:

Arts said:

dv said:

In Australia, when a child is killed by a parent or step parent, there’s a 50% chance it was the mother.

Parent yes.. not step parent.

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you’d said. MMC.

In nature the males tend to kill off any babes that aren’t their own.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Arts said:

Parent yes.. not step parent.

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you’d said. MMC.

In nature the males tend to kill off any babes that aren’t their own.

Phew! I’m glad my first engagement went bung then.

She had three little girls.

Bumping off all of them could have been awkward.

ABC News:

‘‘Think of it as an initiation’: Former followers of Melbourne guru accuse him of mind control and sexually abusing multiple women
Background Briefing

By Dan Oakes, ABC Investigations
Former devotees of Russell Kruckman accuse the US-born spiritual leader of mind control and preying on vulnerable women at his bucolic ashram in bayside Mount Eliza and say he believes he does not answer to the laws of Australia.’

As Mrs S’s dad told her, ‘beware of the men of religion. If they’re not after either your money or your arse, then they’re probably after both’.

captain_spalding said:

ABC News:

‘‘Think of it as an initiation’: Former followers of Melbourne guru accuse him of mind control and sexually abusing multiple women
Background Briefing

By Dan Oakes, ABC Investigations
Former devotees of Russell Kruckman accuse the US-born spiritual leader of mind control and preying on vulnerable women at his bucolic ashram in bayside Mount Eliza and say he believes he does not answer to the laws of Australia.’

As Mrs S’s dad told her, ‘beware of the men of religion. If they’re not after either your money or your arse, then they’re probably after both’.

(sigh)

wrong thread. sorry.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Arts said:

Parent yes.. not step parent.

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you’d said. MMC.

Am I allowed to point out that mostly both women and men do not kill their children, even if they are step children?

save viewing the entirety of human behavior from pathology, pathologizing, yeah, probably the news inclines it

ignoring the derailment for a moment

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you’d said. MMC.

Am I allowed to point out that mostly both women and men do not kill their children, even if they are step children?

save viewing the entirety of human behavior from pathology, pathologizing, yeah, probably the news inclines it

ignoring the derailment for a moment

OK to re-rail:

It seems quite interesting to me that if we look at behaviour of different species, short-range selfish behaviour (i.e. kill other males’ offspring) is quite common, but long range selfish behaviour (i.e. protect the whole group, because they all have some of my genes) is much more common (I think).

QI which one becomes predominant in any given species, and why.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Am I allowed to point out that mostly both women and men do not kill their children, even if they are step children?

save viewing the entirety of human behavior from pathology, pathologizing, yeah, probably the news inclines it

ignoring the derailment for a moment

OK to re-rail:

It seems quite interesting to me that if we look at behaviour of different species, short-range selfish behaviour (i.e. kill other males’ offspring) is quite common, but long range selfish behaviour (i.e. protect the whole group, because they all have some of my genes) is much more common (I think).

QI which one becomes predominant in any given species, and why.

a lot of harmony of groups is quite simply got from not causing others reason (or feelings that might incline them) to burn your house down while sleeping, literally or whatever consider equivalents

most creatures sleep, need to rest