I have had this general thought for a while but it wasn't well formulated. Recent discussions here about evolution of religion kind of stirred up the thoughts again. This was a first attempt to put my thought is some kind of organized written form. I started by asking the question because I was interested in what other thoughts on the idea were (like yours) and I don't think I necessarily have a good grasp on my own concept. The question was as much wanting input as asserting my own idea.

I would agree the rules of conduct preceded religion probably by a lot. My observation of having read Jane Goodall's research on chimps and loving natures shows is that all social animals have certain rules they live by and roles individuals fullfil within their groups. With the discoveries that certain cultural aspects exist between certain groups within a single species, we need to recognize that certain behaviors are learned and then taught to subsequent generations. While I doubt we could honestly describe these social "rules" within these species as government or religion, I think it could be in the very most bone bones sort of way the root that could develop in what we formed within our own species. That might be quite a stretch; I don't know. I am not opposed to the idea.

I would also agree that moral codes would likely have developed after other aspects of a religion. I hadn't thought about moral codes in my original post (see why I was looking for input?) but come follow my direction to stay warm, eat better, and find a mate would seem to me to be initially more beneficial than the rules to not mess around with your neighbors mate or his daughter, and don't take your neighbors things as your own. Allieviating jealousies and other aspects of ordering a society would be a secondary concern to survival and reproduction.

When same sex marriage was a big issue in the US, I was also researching and on my way out of religion. I did a bit of research on sexuality and moral systems. I came across some interesting things. One that comes to mind was among the Inuit (or perhaps another Arctic people). What I read was that it was completely acceptable to have sex with your neighbor's wife. It was also perfectly acceptable for the neighbor to come and kill you if you kept her for too long. Such a moral code allowing adultery and murder was at such odds with anything I had been taught in our judeo-Christian Western moral codes, but it apparently worked for this society.

@RussRAB I think you are making good progress with your thoughts. Another one that you may like to consider is the role played by trade in the building of early societies. Our instinctive moral frame work evolved, as I think most people would agree, to help improve the survival of extended families who shared genes in common. How did they then become extended into larger groupings ? I think that trade was probably was the thing which created the first social networks, emerging from the trade networks.

For example. Say that the people who live on the beach start to trade some of their shells, used for tools and their fish, with the people who live in the hills, for their furs to keep warm in the winter. Then they will soon get to recognize individuals, knowing them and valuing them, especially if they trade fairly, as assets. Then the first time that, say a person from the beach sees a person from the hills in need, it could be hunger a threatening wild animal or some other danger, they will act. In part because they value a good trade partner as an asset, and in part because, through trade they have got to see this individual as literally, a familiar face, and therefore effectively an member of a now further extended family. So for the first time moral behaviour extends beyond the genetic family.

I think that the role played by trade in the development of early society has not yet been fully realized.

@Fernapple - I hadn't considered it but we know it went trade went on. I recall reading a long time ago that seashells were found incorporated into jewelry made by people who high in the mountains. These shells were likely traded to intermediaries to reach the destination where the jewelry was made.

I think there was probaby more intermarriages and exchanges of members between friendly tribes and clans. It's not all that unusual among social animals that an individual might leave his group and join another. With lions, the prides are typically made up of related females. Young males are typically driven out of a pride when they reach a certain age to live on their own or with another probably a sibling until they either take over a pride or die.

Things happen in nature that leaves a individual without the members of his group. Disease, raid from hostile neighbors, etc. Since survival is enhanced when one belongs to a group, it would be likely that individuals who lose significant portions of their primary group would find another to become a part of. It may work out and it may not, but we have evolved to enjoy certain health benefits when we associate with other human beings.

I think our transition to living in larger groups had a lot to do with agriculture. Growing our food had several advantages over relying on hunting and gathering. Farming allowed us to have greater control over a harvest. We knew with new mouths to feed, we needed more fields planted. With foraging, we had to rely on what we could find. Domestication of animals could have a similar effect unless we needed to follow our herd's migration. Agriculture also allowed us to stay put which meant we could improve our shelter and didn't have live in make shift dwellings or structures we could easily haul around. Larger structures could serve to protect more individuals.

@RussRAB Yes agriculture certainly played a major part, and especially towards the end, if you think about it irrigation, which was much needed in many of the often dry river valleys where the larger states often began. Since irrigation meant large scale planning and the allocation of both duties and rights. Irrigation may indeed have been the very first agricultural technology, even before ploughing and sowing, people may have noticed that pouring water from wells and rivers on to the dry ground, made more stuff grow, providing more green food and seeds for both humans and livestock as well as attracting wild game to hunt.

I don't know I completely agree that governments of all sorts are based on facts. We know that in our (or mine, anyway) American government, even some of those I respect have been caught telling outright lies. It's an unfortunate fact, I think, that public opinion can be influenced by falsehoods regardless of their intent, and opinion based on falsehood can garner a great deal of support.

Government based on fact would seem to be far and above more preferable than the alternative. Right off, I can't think of a downside.

@RussRAB The entity itself is factual.