Biological Foundations of Politics

[cwjerome]

It seems Aristotle was probably correct: Human beings are political animals.

Having been an individualistic person personally and politically, I had always assumed a close connection with the basic thoughts of Hobbes, Locke, and even Rousseau. Although these thinkers varied in detail, they are all completely individualistic in their appraisal of man's nature. Human nature, they said, was solitary and man was not a social animal. The impact of this has had an incredibly powerful influence on western political self-understanding, particularly American, and is a cornerstone of capitalistic economics.

Based on what we have learned in the last 20 years from archeology, social anthropology, evolutionary biology, and many other fields, this is wrong. When you ground rights in nature, and you strive to exist in conjunction with nature, the difference between an individual or social foundation spells a world of difference when it comes to justice, the political order, and theories of political development. It changes our whole understanding on man and society on virtually every level.

What do you think about changing understanding of human nature? How might this change modern thinking and society? Where could this lead us?

 

[Craig234]

For one thing, it makes sense for there to be some things like that. Humans have benefited from being in groups for a very long time - long enough for evolution effects.

It reminds me a bit of the domesitcation of dogs from wolves - dogs have unique abilities from thousands of years to 'read' people's emotions and get friendly responses.

Sometimes these things bite us - like people having some diet cravings more than are good for them in our current environment, or hot tempers.

Not even that long ago in our own country - less than a century - we had these 'nature' theories drive some pretty immoral but well-meaning policies - namely Eugenics.

Many or most are still quick to throw out 'civilization' the moment they feel threatened - seems to be a reason terrorism gets so much fear and calls for throwing away rights.

The best things in our society in ways came from the idealistic period of 'humanism' in the 18th century, not that long after the end of the middle ages - there was a lot of optimism about what science and freedom for people, with 'equal rights', could bring, and political systems were designed around that idea.

Unfortunately, the same darker pressures that are the norms for human society for thousands of years are still there, and have learned to return to the 'few rule, many serve' way of things working around the things meant to reduce that like democracy. The plutocrats have been pretty successful at convincing people that 'government' is bad, and that the more given to the few at the top, the better. Pretty perverse notions for a free and democratic country.

We are learning a lot - including some brain functions around 'partisan politics' that once people establish views, they often react without rational thought to those issues.

Even as the US is having its democracy chipped away, others around the world are obtaining democracy for the first time.

 

[Moonbeam]

c: It seems Aristotle was probably correct: Human beings are political animals.

M: You mean something by this but I don't know what. Thinking of man as a political animal doesn't set off anything in my head. I do not know what you feel.

c: Having been an individualistic person personally and politically, I had always assumed a close connection with the basic thoughts of Hobbes, Locke, and even Rousseau. Although these thinkers varied in detail, they are all completely individualistic in their appraisal of man's nature.

M: I get some vague sense that the word individualistic means something important here, that it stands for something in your thinking, but I know nothing about the folk you named or about their thinking. I do not know what it means to be individualistic in appraising man's nature for sure, but because I have my own ideas about Western thinking and how we tend to focus on the rights of the individual rather than the rights of the community, I can make a possible guess as to what you might mean.

c: Human nature, they said, was solitary and man was not a social animal. The impact of this has had an incredibly powerful influence on western political self-understanding, particularly American, and is a cornerstone of capitalistic economics.

M: Using what understanding I have and assuming it's what you may mean, I think I agree.

c: Based on what we have learned in the last 20 years from archeology, social anthropology, evolutionary biology, and many other fields, this is wrong. When you ground rights in nature, and you strive to exist in conjunction with nature, the difference between an individual or social foundation spells a world of difference when it comes to justice, the political order, and theories of political development. It changes our whole understanding on man and society on virtually every level.

M: If, for example, you are talking about something that as an example, might be represented by those who object to paying taxes as say, personal theft, as opposed to the feeling of responsibility to the community in which we have our being, I would say we have devolved rather than evolved in the main. This may be well understood by the folk who study such matters but I think it has had little penetration into the culture. I believe that most folk have almost no idea at all as to what their real human nature is. But is this the kind of thing that you mean?

c: What do you think about changing understanding of human nature? How might this change modern thinking and society? Where could this lead us?

If I am even in the ball park of what you are thinking, I think you might enjoy listening to TED lectures. It seems to me that many of the recognized advanced thinkers on the planet have expressed themselves there. I will try to find an example of what I think you may mean. If I can I will post the link.

http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_wright_on_optimism.html

 

[cwjerome]

Aristotle's notion of humans being political animals means we are social by nature and "designed" for togetherness... and is a foundational basis for human action and understanding, sort of like the statement "I think therefore I am," which is a fairly meaningless cliche to most people but is actually a watershed philosophical statement about mankind and the universe when understood deeply and taken to it's logical conclusions.

Most of what we know and have built of social-political-economic system around is based off of a Hobbesian/Lockean understanding about man and nature. The Declaration of Independence and our economic system is largely derived from their ideas, which are rooted in the presumption that man is an individualistic creature and not a social animal. That in the state of nature, people are isolated individuals for whom society is not natural.

But this concept has proven itself to be non-historic and non-verifiable. The idea of humans being primordially individualistic underpins the notion of rights we adhere to and that we only entered into society as a rational calculation. Our economics builds its assumptions on that humans are rational beings that want to maximize their individual utility or incomes. But all indications are showing this is not true. So the question is, what is human by nature and what’s human by social convention? I am saying that recent evidence suggests things are actually reversed... that it's individuality, not sociability, that has developed over the course of human history.

 

[Murloc]

I don't think anyone really believes humans are solitary animals.
I don't believe in the social contract theory.

I've always seen society and the politics that organize it as a natural development for humans. Natural selection caused that, it's what made us successful and it's part of our nature.
The family or the tribe and its various subsets (like a hunting party, the "kitchen") are all organizations that involve politics. And there's nothing more biological than the family, the mother-child bond and love are natural traits. So politics do have a biological foundation.

I think this is not incompatible with capitalism. Wolves try to become the alpha wolf, and that's capitalism, even if they live in societies.

 

[Craig234]

I don't believe in the social contract theory.

So, under what theory can you object to a group coming and killing you and taking your things, where there is no 'social contract' where anyone owes anyone else anything?

The Rule of Law is a social contract. The law of private property, the enforcement of public safety, the acceptance of currency, all social contract material.

Any government is part of a 'social contract' - whether more consensual (democracy) or less (dictatorship, absolute monarchy, warlord, etc.)

It's absurd to object to a 'social contract'. The legitimate question is the content of that contract - where to draw the lines.

I've always seen society and the politics that organize it as a natural development for humans. Natural selection caused that, it's what made us successful and it's part of our nature.
The family or the tribe and its various subsets (like a hunting party, the "kitchen") are all organizations that involve politics. And there's nothing more biological than the family, the mother-child bond and love are natural traits. So politics do have a biological foundation.

I think this is not incompatible with capitalism. Wolves try to become the alpha wolf, and that's capitalism, even if they live in societies.

Do they, really? Wolves spend a lot of time trying to be the 'alpha'? Wolf packs are crippled by in-fighting among wolves jocking for that?

Wolves are really an apt analogy for the flaws of capitalism - monopolies, exploitation, under-regulation leading to disasters, corrupt preservation of power and privilige?

Are there many alpha wolves living in luxury who starve their tribe to pay for it?

 

[woolfe9998]

But this concept has proven itself to be non-historic and non-verifiable. The idea of humans being primordially individualistic underpins the notion of rights we adhere to and that we only entered into society as a rational calculation. Our economics builds its assumptions on that humans are rational beings that want to maximize their individual utility or incomes. But all indications are showing this is not true. So the question is, what is human by nature and what’s human by social convention? I am saying that recent evidence suggests things are actually reversed... that it's individuality, not sociability, that has developed over the course of human history.

What would be different about our current political system if we had, in your view, the correct understanding of humans as fundamentally social animals? Please be specific and give at least one or two examples. If there isn't any material difference then the entire discussion is abstract.

 

[Anarchist420]

The plutocrats have been pretty successful at convincing people that 'government' is bad, and that the more given to the few at the top, the better.

Last time I checked, plutocrat Mitt Romney said the govt should increase military spending and that "we need to control the free market."

 

[cwjerome]

What would be different about our current political system if we had, in your view, the correct understanding of humans as fundamentally social animals? Please be specific and give at least one or two examples. If there isn't any material difference then the entire discussion is abstract.

Honestly I'm not sure as I haven't thought things through that far. It is abstract, but as a starting point they usually are.

What I think this mainly does is enrich our awareness of history, man (on many levels), and particularly political development since the first human beings. This is not something where you snap your fingers and suddenly the universe changes overnight because of a new breakthrough in understanding. This is something that unfolds gradually as the first conceptions ripple outward over time and create dozens of new insights in dozens of knowledge fields. I suspect that concrete social-political-economic changes from this interpretation will be very gradual, barely noticeable, but on whole quite enormous.

 

[cwjerome]

Last time I checked, plutocrat Mitt Romney said the govt should increase military spending and that "we need to control the free market."

Unfortunately for you, what these new understanding mean for anarcho-libertarian types is quite bad. The idea that people are naturally political and form "governments" as the base level of humanity will only drive more nails into the anarchist coffin.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thank you. I asked Google what Hobbs believed. It said:

"Hobbes believed people are greedy and selfish. He also believed that only a powerful government can create a peaceful, orderly society."

It said also that:

"The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) believed that all people had rights that no government could take away. He expressed three of them as "life, liberty, and property". He believed that government should be run by the governed for their benefit."

With that in mind I am still trying to understand your questions:

c: Aristotle's notion of humans being political animals means we are social by nature and "designed" for togetherness... and is a foundational basis for human action and understanding, sort of like the statement "I think therefore I am," which is a fairly meaningless cliche to most people but is actually a watershed philosophical statement about mankind and the universe when understood deeply and taken to it's logical conclusions.

M: What I am not sure about here, and not even sure I'm asking the right question, is are you comparing Aristotle to Descartes or contrasting them? Are you saying these are two different ways of looking at things? That is what I think you are saying. If so, what are the implications of each point of view are you suggesting each leads to if considered deeply and taken to their logical conclusions. I think I get lost because you are assuming I know and leaving it at that. If I don't see the meat of what these two points of view mean to you in a concrete way its hard for me to grasp what you are saying. All I know is that these two folk represent something to you.

c: Most of what we know and have built of social-political-economic system around is based off of a Hobbesian/Lockean understanding about man and nature. The Declaration of Independence and our economic system is largely derived from their ideas, which are rooted in the presumption that man is an individualistic creature and not a social animal. That in the state of nature, people are isolated individuals for whom society is not natural.

M: I am not sure about this as a correct analysis. Let me see if I can explain:

Man is greedy and selfish and needs a powerful government to control this but has rights that even a powerful government must not take away. What I see then is that by placing power in the hands of all people, in a democracy, the greed of one person is held in check by the greed of another, with the notion that folk have a right to be greedy in protecting themselves from one another via this distribution of power communally based on the concept that the right of one person is the right of all and that the greed of one is fine so long as it doesn't conflict with the greed of another. This is the notion of the link that I gave you of a zero sum game, that it is not the pursuit of self interest that is what is good, but the INTELLIGENT pursuit of self interest, that my real interest is to be interested in you acquiring your interests as I do.

c: But this concept has proven itself to be non-historic and non-verifiable. The idea of humans being primordially individualistic underpins the notion of rights we adhere to and that we only entered into society as a rational calculation. Our economics builds its assumptions on that humans are rational beings that want to maximize their individual utility or incomes. But all indications are showing this is not true. So the question is, what is human by nature and what’s human by social convention? I am saying that recent evidence suggests things are actually reversed... that it's individuality, not sociability, that has developed over the course of human history.

M: If I am hearing you correctly you are saying that an unenlightened self interest has developed and that intelligent or enlightened self interest has not prevailed or dominated. Is that correct? If so, did you get a chance to play the video I linked. It does suggest the possibility of hope.

My belief is that new organs of perception, the need say for intelligent self interest, develop as the need to evolve increases. We are in a race with the need to acquire intelligent self interest vs. death by ignorant personal greed. I would say also, that either state can be quite natural for man and that at root is the question of the real origin of evil. I believe also that the phenomena of intelligent self interest, its presence in any one individual represents a peak emotional experience, is an insight that fundamentally effects ones behavior and brings with it a sense of self worth and self satisfaction and self respect that is known and treasured by those who experience it, that the love of the other, the feeling and functioning of empathy, is an organic good felt by ones whole being and confers a complete and utter confidence in its natural rectitude, that is matches and is a reflection of our true nature but can never be proven but is know utter certainty internally. It makes a person happy so to speak.

 

[Craig234]

Honestly I'm not sure as I haven't thought things through that far. It is abstract, but as a starting point they usually are.

What I think this mainly does is enrich our awareness of history, man (on many levels), and particularly political development since the first human beings. This is not something where you snap your fingers and suddenly the universe changes overnight because of a new breakthrough in understanding. This is something that unfolds gradually as the first conceptions ripple outward over time and create dozens of new insights in dozens of knowledge fields. I suspect that concrete social-political-economic changes from this interpretation will be very gradual, barely noticeable, but on whole quite enormous.

Can I humbly suggest a brief history of human society?

1. Formed hierarchical structures, based on power, to compete with other societies
2. Religious justification placed on the structure
3. 'The enlightenment' around the 17th and 18th centuries increasingly questioned the historical absolute rights of leaders and began to increasingly demand 'rights for people'
4. The experiment of democracy has become the norm for human civilizations, while at the same time facing challenges reducing the power it gives the people - e.g., money ruling.

This last is a sort of return to the long-term history of civilization of rule by the powerful.

An analogous thing happened to Rome - at the same time they abandoned their historical valuing of a sort of democracy and opposition to dictatorship to have emperors, those emperors held power by paying lip service to those values, keeping the symbols of 'SPQR' and declaring their great humility and respect for the people, while the Senate was made a completely unrepresentative rubber stamp for the emperor, used to reward cronies.

The same people who today most serve wealthy interests over the people are the loudest to pay lip service to our democracy and the people, attacking their opponents as 'elites'.

You mention a gradual erosion - bit by bit, media consolidation, elimination of restrictions on the use of money, the public being ignored - the culture is shifting from democracy.

An important turning point was many Americans adopting the position from a spokesperson for the wealthy, Ronald Reagan, saying that democratic government 'was the problem'.

 

[Moonbeam]

I often reflect back to a story told by a naturalist observing baboons in Africa, when thinking about the nature of the primate, man.

A leopard began to track a tribe of baboons and they saw him following them. Two young males dropped back and lay in wait. They attacked the leopard as it passed under them. One was instantly disemboweled and the other had his throat torn out but not before delivering a fatal wound to the leopard.

 

[cwjerome]

Can I humbly suggest a brief history of human society?

1. Formed hierarchical structures, based on power, to compete with other societies
2. Religious justification placed on the structure
3. 'The enlightenment' around the 17th and 18th centuries increasingly questioned the historical absolute rights of leaders and began to increasingly demand 'rights for people'
4. The experiment of democracy has become the norm for human civilizations, while at the same time facing challenges reducing the power it gives the people - e.g., money ruling.

This last is a sort of return to the long-term history of civilization of rule by the powerful.

An analogous thing happened to Rome - at the same time they abandoned their historical valuing of a sort of democracy and opposition to dictatorship to have emperors, those emperors held power by paying lip service to those values, keeping the symbols of 'SPQR' and declaring their great humility and respect for the people, while the Senate was made a completely unrepresentative rubber stamp for the emperor, used to reward cronies.

The same people who today most serve wealthy interests over the people are the loudest to pay lip service to our democracy and the people, attacking their opponents as 'elites'.

You mention a gradual erosion - bit by bit, media consolidation, elimination of restrictions on the use of money, the public being ignored - the culture is shifting from democracy.

An important turning point was many Americans adopting the position from a spokesperson for the wealthy, Ronald Reagan, saying that democratic government 'was the problem'.

The bold is wonderful spin, terribly deceitful and really nothing to do with the topic, but a fine spin specimen nonetheless.

What I see happening is you desperately trying to cram a very one-note, narrow worldview into a discussion it really can't fit. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or media consolidation or Reagan. It's about man's nature, how he has developed socially, economically, and especially politically for 1000s of years based on this nature, and how this understanding of human nature is changing. You are stuck in a box, typing nearly the same information into every post on every thread.

 

[Craig234]

The bold is wonderful spin, terribly deceitful and really nothing to do with the topic, but a fine spin specimen nonetheless.

What I see happening is you desperately trying to cram a very one-note, narrow worldview into a discussion it really can't fit. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or media consolidation or Reagan. It's about man's nature, how he has developed socially, economically, and especially politically for 1000s of years based on this nature, and how this understanding of human nature is changing. You are stuck in a box, typing nearly the same information into every post on every thread.

No, it's not, but I'd suggest that if you are guilty of the very things you charge, you would respond that way calling 'truth' spin.

While Reagan is a Republican, while Republicans are the leading party for that issue of serving the wealthy interests (with no small complicity from many Democrats as well), I did not mention party and my post is not about, it's about the larger issues. I noted one specific advancement of the problem I was describing, but you treat it as the whole post - it's a correct and appropriate point you distort, but it can easily be removed from my post leaving the broader points, which you do not address, seem to ignore.

I think that's a problem with your hearing.

I could explain why your view is incorrect further - more context of American history - but given your reckless and false attack the above was 'deceitful', it clearly won't do any good.

If the point sounds similar to you - perhaps it's because you're not really understanding it, and simply tired of hearing the message.

It's a bit like a loyalist talking with a revolutionary in 1775; the loyalist would say 'you keep bringing up the same issues arguing for independence. It's very deceitful'.

Well, no it's not, but since the loyalist is simply not interested in the approach of secession, he'll be irritated by the arguments for it, for which he has other 'solutions', namely 'stop whining'.

Since you so strongly overreact and can't keep the Reagan example in context, just ignore that and re-read my post if you want to respond further.

 

[cwjerome]

M: What I am not sure about here, and not even sure I'm asking the right question, is are you comparing Aristotle to Descartes or contrasting them? Are you saying these are two different ways of looking at things? That is what I think you are saying. If so, what are the implications of each point of view are you suggesting each leads to if considered deeply and taken to their logical conclusions. I think I get lost because you are assuming I know and leaving it at that. If I don't see the meat of what these two points of view mean to you in a concrete way its hard for me to grasp what you are saying. All I know is that these two folk represent something to you.

If I am hearing you correctly you are saying that an unenlightened self interest has developed and that intelligent or enlightened self interest has not prevailed or dominated. Is that correct? If so, did you get a chance to play the video I linked. It does suggest the possibility of hope.

I bring up Descartes to illustrate that a simple statement can have profound implications in the most fundamental aspects life and understanding the world. Both statements provide the basic building blocks into understanding human behavior, society, and institution building. These types of statements build a series of consequences and corollaries that governments spring from. Saying the people are political animals is saying that people are communal... they naturally band into communities and form government-like structures naturally. This is at odds with the thinkers whose ideas helped give birth to America: Hobbes and Locke.

I am not saying that an unenlightened self interest has developed. I am not really pushing anything or using this in some agenda. What I am saying is some of our primary political assumptions seem to have been fairly wrong. What this means exactly or what might result I do not know. I do know that this will start changing a lot of how we look at the historical political development of humans, all over the world, since the dawn of man.

 

[Moonbeam]

I bring up Descartes to illustrate that a simple statement can have profound implications in the most fundamental aspects life and understanding the world. Both statements provide the basic building blocks into understanding human behavior, society, and institution building. These types of statements build a series of consequences and corollaries that governments spring from. Saying the people are political animals is saying that people are communal... they naturally band into communities and form government-like structures naturally. This is at odds with the thinkers whose ideas helped give birth to America: Hobbes and Locke.

I am not saying that an unenlightened self interest has developed. I am not really pushing anything or using this in some agenda. What I am saying is some of our primary political assumptions seem to have been fairly wrong. What this means exactly or what might result I do not know. I do know that this will start changing a lot of how we look at the historical political development of humans, all over the world, since the dawn of man.

I am not saying that you are pushing anything. I am saying that an higher understanding of what it means to be properly selfish is what is evolving worldwide amid all people, that the good of the individual is connected to the good of the many and that it is the pace of this evolution on which our survival rests and also that this must evolve naturally and can't be caused to come about by force. I am saying that it is factually true that the good of the one is dependent on the good of the many and that the good of the many is dependent on the protection of the good of everyone, that we are engaged in a zero sum game or that unenlightened self interest is a form of parasitism and an expression of evil.

Light is the cure so the effort involves the question of how to bring light. That should, in my opinion, be the task to which we need to apply our efforts.

 

[woolfe9998]

Honestly I'm not sure as I haven't thought things through that far. It is abstract, but as a starting point they usually are.

What I think this mainly does is enrich our awareness of history, man (on many levels), and particularly political development since the first human beings. This is not something where you snap your fingers and suddenly the universe changes overnight because of a new breakthrough in understanding. This is something that unfolds gradually as the first conceptions ripple outward over time and create dozens of new insights in dozens of knowledge fields. I suspect that concrete social-political-economic changes from this interpretation will be very gradual, barely noticeable, but on whole quite enormous.

Then my comment is that I'm not sure it would be any different in a practical sense, because I don't think the idea that man is a fundamentally social animal has ever been alien to western thinking, and I don't think it is incompatible with the notion of individual rights in our Constitution. Maybe it's incompatible with anarchy and/or other extreme forms of libertarianism which seem to suggest that each man is an island unto himself. It isn't incompatible with mainstream political thought in the west IMO.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then my comment is that I'm not sure it would be any different in a practical sense, because I don't think the idea that man is a fundamentally social animal has ever been alien to western thinking, and I don't think it is incompatible with the notion of individual rights in our Constitution. Maybe it's incompatible with anarchy and/or other extreme forms of libertarianism which seem to suggest that each man is an island unto himself. It isn't incompatible with mainstream political thought in the west IMO.

I agree. It is the fact of inalienable rights, the notion that they exist and are universal, is what keeps the selfish from assuming rights only for themselves. This is communal reciprocity. The question that springs out of this for me then, is why the sight of this reciprocity get lost. I think iit is a projection of the selfishness of folk who think only of themselves onto the government, the fear that the government, who they are, is just like them. I think this springs from the notion that man is fundamentally evil because the evil fundamentally see others like they see themselves. And it is the unconsciousness of this feeling and the fear of self honesty, that causes such folk to deny what they are, folk who believe in the lie they are worthless.

 

[cwjerome]

Then my comment is that I'm not sure it would be any different in a practical sense, because I don't think the idea that man is a fundamentally social animal has ever been alien to western thinking, and I don't think it is incompatible with the notion of individual rights in our Constitution. Maybe it's incompatible with anarchy and/or other extreme forms of libertarianism which seem to suggest that each man is an island unto himself. It isn't incompatible with mainstream political thought in the west IMO.

I don't think it's incompatible either but I think it clarifies and slightly modifies our ideas and understandings... in a good way. By doing this it also informs us better on fringe elements and why they just don't make sense. It also provides connections with a host of other non-political fields, enhancing those areas as well.

At the end of the day it excites those who study and develop ideas at very deep, broad, and longterm level, and doesn't show up on the radar screens of 98% of the population who operate in the very immediate, very concrete level of the sociopolitical spectrum.

 

[Craig234]

One way to help get information on the question of 'biological basis in politics' would be to collect information on politics that seem universal or almost in difference societies.

Another biological note - animal species often have observable systems for establishing leaders - and some parallel might be found for our irrational preferences for politicians.

One interesting note - where has anarchy or 'liberatrianism' ever worked among more than a few people? Where has communism ever done well when not forced by gun?

 

[cwjerome]

One way to help get information on the question of 'biological basis in politics' would be to collect information on politics that seem universal or almost in difference societies.

Another biological note - animal species often have observable systems for establishing leaders - and some parallel might be found for our irrational preferences for politicians.

Absolutely. The primate precursors of humanity had already developed strong social and political skills, and the human brain is hardwired with faculties that facilitate many forms of social cooperation. Early humans and the first civilizations also show these characteristics.

One interesting note - where has anarchy or 'liberatrianism' ever worked among more than a few people? Where has communism ever done well when not forced by gun?

There was never a period in human history where people existed as isolated individuals. That is an anarchist dreamworld, or nightmare rather. Hobbes is surely close in a theoretical sense that The state of nature may be characterized as a state of war but the violence was not perpetrated by individuals but instead by tight social groups. The individualistic understanding of human motivation to explain our actions stems mainly from a social evolution driven by man made constructs and institutions, not human nature.

 

[Arglebargle]

I often reflect back to a story told by a naturalist observing baboons in Africa, when thinking about the nature of the primate, man.

A leopard began to track a tribe of baboons and they saw him following them. Two young males dropped back and lay in wait. They attacked the leopard as it passed under them. One was instantly disemboweled and the other had his throat torn out but not before delivering a fatal wound to the leopard.

Baboons also support their elderly and infirm. But when the Baboon troop is exploring a new (and hence dangerous) area, the elders are often the ones going out to scout....

 

[Craig234]

Absolutely. The primate precursors of humanity had already developed strong social and political skills, and the human brain is hardwired with faculties that facilitate many forms of social cooperation. Early humans and the first civilizations also show these characteristics.



There was never a period in human history where people existed as isolated individuals. That is an anarchist dreamworld, or nightmare rather. Hobbes is surely close in a theoretical sense that The state of nature may be characterized as a state of war but the violence was not perpetrated by individuals but instead by tight social groups. The individualistic understanding of human motivation to explain our actions stems mainly from a social evolution driven by man made constructs and institutions, not human nature.

Actually, this ties in to an important sociological phenomenon:

My probably favorite book title is Chris Hedges' "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning".

He's a reporter who has first-hand experience in many wars, and the topic of his book is about things he observes about societies who go to war.

So these aren't things you see so much with individuals, but as you note, groups.

He makes the point that going to war has an incredible 'binding' effect on a society as they unite behind their group. He notes many leaders go to war when they need that unity.

(As a side note, George Bush was quoted when running for President that he wanted to be a 'war president', because he realized that gave the president increased popularity/power.)

One anecdote was that he had leftist friends in chile, who understood all this. They were engaged in protest activities against the right-wing generals in charge of the country.

Then the generals picked a fight with England over the Falklands - and his leftist friends instantly turned into rabid nationalists supporting their government.

He's also noted that after the mass hysteria and unity in these wars, when they end there tends to be a 'national amnesia' to avoid remembering them.

That sort of sociology fits what you're saying.

One more thing supporting it - a quote from a Nazi leader:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

 

[woolfe9998]

Absolutely. The primate precursors of humanity had already developed strong social and political skills, and the human brain is hardwired with faculties that facilitate many forms of social cooperation. Early humans and the first civilizations also show these characteristics.



There was never a period in human history where people existed as isolated individuals. That is an anarchist dreamworld, or nightmare rather. Hobbes is surely close in a theoretical sense that The state of nature may be characterized as a state of war but the violence was not perpetrated by individuals but instead by tight social groups. The individualistic understanding of human motivation to explain our actions stems mainly from a social evolution driven by man made constructs and institutions, not human nature.

I'm curious what you think are the man made constructs and institutions which explain the individualistic view. I think there are constructs which reinforce both views.

So far as the individualistic view, it is particularly prevalent in American culture, often expressed as a reverence for the myth of the rugged, self-reliant individualist of the American frontier. That earlier root of individualism, however, was usually not devoid of concern for our fellow man. It was never divorced from the notion of social responsibility. However, it has interacted with modern American consumerism, and its attendant materialism, which has transformed into a philosophical gloss on pure narcissism. No one is immune to it, not even the modern liberal.