Indigenous groups have also been a major sign that cooperation and group solidarity is much closer to our human nature than the suvival of the fittest culture that capitalism nurtures.

Their critiques on European society created a huge wave of political discussion and ideas in Europe, even if they thought of the indigenous people as simple minded savages which they absolutely were not. On the contrary, they showed a much higher capability of quality discussion and reaching a consensus because it was a central part of the way they were organised. The chief didn't have power over them and couldn't command them, the group would have to agree with them in order to do something, so a chief should be very skilled in discussion and very knowledgeable so that they could succesfuly lead the others and gain their trust.

Their critiques were possibly what resulted in the formation of the idea of equality in Europe, a concept that wasn't at all relevant until then.

Humans are, by far, the most altruistic species of primates. One anthropologist observed that you will never see two chimpanzees carrying a log together.

The father of sociobiology (the study of the evolution of social behavior), EO Wilson, went so far by the end of his career to consider humans formally as a eusocial species, putting us in the same category as ants and bees and a very few other animals. In a eusocial species, the group itself is much more of a target of natural selection than it is in a herd of deer or troop of gorillas. The group itself becomes an individual as an emergent property, analogous to how the living cells of your body work together to create are an individual.

But this is of course going to be a continuous value, not a Boolean one. We need to develop observational studies as well as refine the theoretical models to properly understand both this evolutionary dynamic, and ourselves.

Return to monke?