Syylara has already covered a lot of this but:
Now, while it is true that some tribal societies are egalitarian, tribal societies also tend to lack technological progress, and tend to have a high level of conflict with other tribes. The tribal model allows egalitarianism because members of a tribe are likely to be related to you genetically. However, tribal models cannot compete with more complex societies, and tribal societies do not offer participants the optimal chances of having their genes passed down. It should also be noted that even "egalitarian" tribes are usually not free of social status, ostracization, and violence. Indeed, the farther we have moved away from the tribal model, the less violent towards each other we have become.
While to some extent that is true, I think its a fallacy to throw the baby out with the bath water and toss out all social constructs above an individualist level.
Dunbar's Number provides an upper limit on the number of people we can really be expected to interact with. So the ideal social formation should fall somewhere between a family unit and the Dunbar Maximum. Do I 'know' what that ideal social group is? No, I don't, and I don't believe any studies have been done to find what an ideal sized social group is, however, given that globally, across much of time, primitive tribes are often roughly the same size, I think that might be a good place to start. I'm not a primitivist, I don't think we should all throw out our toasters and go live in grass huts.
My central idea, however, that genetic evolution requires ultimately selfish behavior, has not been challenged, except by reference to a girl being raised by wild dogs. Wild dogs, I assure you, are also selfish organisms. Raising the young of another species is a misfiring of maternal and paternal instincts, not evidence of the universe being charitable. As well, a child adapting to life as a wild dog is merely an incident of an organism seeking survival by any means.
The problem is not that you cannot convince some humans to try to be angels, the problem is that our universe is constructed in such a way so as to make self-sacrificial behavior an ultimately extinctionist enterprise.
First off, the 'selfishness' Dawkins talks about does not refer to human/higher animal selfishness, he's talking about the behaviour of genes, as has already been pointed out by others,
Its also still very much up to debate whether or not Dawkins theory is even correct from a genetics standpointSelfishness is very much not intrinsic human nature, and that's pretty clear, since we see
Plenty of
Studies that show it to be very much specific to circumstances, and that overall, people are mostly 'good'
Suppose that the population consist of 50% willing layabouts
No. Stop. First you have to show me the evidence that if given the option 50% of humanity would do nothing. I have once again, yet to see evidence of this being the case. I have seen no studies done, I have seen nothing but anecdotal evidence.
Those who do make a study of human economic behavior generally agree on one point: it is overwhelmingly self-interested. That's not to say that humans can't or won't help others, but rather that they are first and foremost concerned with the comfort of themselves and their direct family.
Firstly, there are
whole branches of economics devoted to making people do things that is not within their own best interests. Humans are not perfect logic machines. We are not cold. We are driven by a variety of factors, environmental, emotional, genetic, and the like. We do not always (or even often) act within our own best interests, hell, half the time we can't even see what course of action would be in our own best interests. I don't see some clear concise self focused path to betterment in my mind. Its all a mishmash of half formed plans and ideas, all competing to win out in my head, and I try to be a rationalist. The average person? They probably have trouble planning ahead past the next month. Its a very complex issue, but I think that overwhelmingly, if people were walking down a road, and saw someone hurt in a ditch, they would stop and try to help.
Again, a thought experiment: if you do believe that every human has the right to a house, a living, and food, and that materials to provide it should be taken from those better off, why have you not sold your computer and other luxuries to provide for those badly off in, say, South America or Africa? At the very least, you could sell all your entertainment materials and other unnecessary accoutrements.
Because I understand that the overall impact of my doing that would be very very minor in the grand scheme of things. But if I had a way, that by giving up my stuff, I could raise say, an entire country from 3rd world status to a decent standard of living, or hell, even just a city, I'd probably be inclined to do it. But overwhelmingly, my impact would be minor. Hell, I've entertained the notion, and in a long term sense, still entertaining the notion, of just abandoning society altogether and going to live in the woods with the Rainbow people. That doesn't mean I don't help as much as I can now though. There is no magic switch between absolute altruism and absolute selfishness. Its all shades and degrees of one or the other. I have a garden, and I tend to recycle and upcycle as much as possible, so that my existence isn't constantly taking away from people in more impoverished countries. I attend (and in some cases give) lectures and conduct documentary showings to help highlight some of the problems and what can be done.
As for the instincts for violence, survival, and competition, it's quite easy to acquire knowledge on the subject. Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, makes most of these points. He is not inclined to like them, however, and exhorts his readers to "rebel" against their selfish genes, a demand that was met with some level of ridicule for an otherwise excellent book. Michael Shermer has some excellent work on the subject, and there are enough books on economics and human behavior, from The Wealth of Nations to Super Freakonomics, that I think I need not describe a library. Suffice it to say that the motive of self-interest on the part of humans and other organisms is now considered a settled proposition.
It really isn't, as the links I've provided illustrate.
And this is the other thing that gets at me: Just because humans can be selfish or can be altruistic doesn't mean we inherently, intrinsically are one or the other, as I said above, most people do try to be good, and also do try to look out for their own interests. Its all degrees of one or the other. For example: Theft. If humans were inherently selfish, everyone would constantly be trying to steal things from everyone else. Which we don't see. If humans were inherently selfish, then the default norm for men wanting to have sex would be rape, which we don't see. If humans were inherently selfish then when we see someone hurt, we wouldn't try to help them, which we don't see. Can humans act selfishly? Obviously. But to say that we are inherently selfish to the degree where we can never be satisfied with what we have, and will always be trying to take and take and take, is just not an observed trait. The trick then, is not to just say 'humans are selfish and therefore there can never be equality' the trick is to knowing that humans have a predisposition for selfishness in the current cultural climate, to create a system that is the best for everyone, so that everyone benefits.
Human nature is inherently greedy, but I agree that it is the environment that is to blame. That is to say, it is the environment that has molded our genes to operate using a model of limited resources. Again, however, to argue that resources aren't limited is to contradict the evidence of the world around us. There are limited resources at any one time, and we all (or almost all), even billionaires, would like to be more comfortable, more entertained, have higher social status, and more be wealthier than we are now.
I'd really like to see sociological evidence that everyone always wants more, and that no one can ever be satisfied. Because that sounds like the sort of thing economists would tell each other to sleep better at night. Honestly, I don't want a mansion. I don't want a dozen cars. I don't want a private jet. I want a decent home with enough space for children, and a garden, I want a bicycle, I want food on the table, I want a decent computer with an internet connection, and I want to be able to afford a surgery I need. That's it. I could be content with that. I would be satisfied with that. And I think most people want similar things. Our culture encourages, very actively, us to want more and more and more and more. But that doesn't mean that wanting everything is inherent. Scarcity only applies if X*Y>R Where X is the population, Y is their desires, and R is the resources. Capitalism posits that desires are infinite. But I'd really like to see some actual scientific evidence that this is the case.
But, and lastly, I would like to ask, why is it moral to see that everyone survives? I don't consider that to be morality. It seems to me that it's a borrowing of Christian ethics, which I do not accept. I don't think every life is precious, nor do I think that a society should consider every member worth preserving. In fact, I can think of several members of the human race that the rest of us would be better off without - should those persons come to need saving. By what standard would you demand that the competitive and capable sacrifice for others, even if you were right? What makes egalitarianism a good thing? Ciarente can make arguments for my helping others out of my own self-interest - which, incidentally, I wasn't arguing against. But Casiella and Riordan, you seem to believe that we should give because it is "good". I do not. Can you show me why I should think otherwise?
That's honestly a really good question. But I think that the reason for it is simple: Because trying to judge the worth of people gets into very very
messy territory. What if it was determined that YOU weren't fit for survival?
Everyone wants to live. One of the most obvious, basic, and fundamental things about life is that it wants to go on in an overwhelming majority of cases, to the point where we treat those who attempt to voluntarily terminate their own existence as mentally sick. Its easier, fairer, and in my mind, simply the best option, to try to make sure as many people live as possible, to try to make as many people content and satisfied as possible.
Yeah. Evolution's weird man, and it goes all sorts of crazy places.
I once heard a theory about peacocks and how their evolution has led them down a path that is actually really strange and somewhat nonsensical until you think about it.
Think about it. A male peacock is this giant, flightless, slow, and not dangerous bird. Most animals that evolve this way tend to develop ways of hiding from their predators, but not the male peacock. He's got this giant tail that is designed solely so that female peacocks can see him from far away.
It goes completely counter to the idea that 'might makes right', as most evolutionary biologists understand it. Dawkins, who's used this as an example to show how science and scientists can change their minds when presented with evidence, didn't buy it until he saw the math for it, just because of how strange the idea is.
The idea is that the male peacock is saying, essentially, "Look at how big and strong a mate I would be. I'm huge, and fat, and I can't fly. I am carting around a giant tail that is about half of my body weight and that you can see from forever away, and I haven't been eaten by a bear yet." The implication being, braggadocio being what it is, that that peacock can kill a fucking bear and so can you babies, mama peacock.
That's because evolution doesn't optimize, at all. Its purely a function of the number of offspring a given organism has over a number of generations. Its less 'survival of the fittest' and more accurately 'survival of the least inadequate'
Author
Topic: Romney's VP? (Read 18316 times)