had a scary thought

[hmmnmm]

Forget how it started. I was thinking of it, then the wife and I discussed it a little.

An observation of the dichotomous nature of we humans (maybe dichotomous is not the right word, but it's good word eh? Dichotomous.) How that, here we are in the 21st century, and life for many is rather comfortable, compared to say, the 14th century. We can zip around the world, we have this fabulous (ah! another ous word! stupendous!) magic known as the internet on which we can rap and chat and from the comfort of a soft chair, write out a dirty story that potentially thousands of fellow humans may read, digest, feel effect. You get the idea, hopefully.

But at the same time (simultaneous!), the utterly incomprehensible depths of cruelty that humans yet inflict on each other... and then you glance through history. Think we've really changed much? Maybe outwardly but not inherently. Not at all. The capability I mean.

Civilized! That's what started it. We pat ourselves on the back, because we view ourselves as civilized. But what does that mean? Are we really?

I mean, humans are fucking vicious. Have been, and remain so. From spiteful ridicule of an innocent, to the wholesale slaughter of peoples because they practiced a different religion or they didn't racially measure up. Or for whatever convoluted reason.

Here's the scary part: As I progressed through these thoughts, I was shaking my head, ashamed almost to admit I was among this same vicious humanity. When I had to ask, "how do you know you wouldn't have done or would do the same thing if you were them or there? Honestly. You can't say you know for sure you would or wouldn't be right in the thick of the mob."

Scary huh? Every single one of us is capable of committing acts as atrocious as any that have been committed since we first (or before) began to walk upright. Since before we had language. That hasn't changed.

I know.

There's the other side. Humans giving, sacrificing, acts of selfless heroism. So we're capable of both. All equally capable. So what makes any of us really any different from anyone else?



That's a rough sketch. Sorry it isn't erotic or literary. No real point. No expectations for anyone to respond or discuss. Just something that started to freak me out and I'm glad for this opportunity to get it out of my brain and into this place. Maybe it'll settle down.

Must think of something more pleasant.

Hm. That could a thread?

Thanks for listening.

 

[hmmnmm]

Maybe violent movies and stories helps curb these tendencies? Contact sports?

 

[sr71plt]

There's that. But equally there's the other side. A tragedy happens anywhere in the world, and sympathy and aid is instaneous now, also in contrast to the 14th century and also aided by the Internet.

A couple of years ago friends from Belgium (who we knew in Bangkok when we fortuitously were both stationed there at two separate times) stopped to see us on their way to their usual wintering at a Thai beach resort. After they left us, they were still en route to Thailand when that giant tsunami hit and virtually wiped the town next to the resort off the map. (Some quirk of the configuration of the ocean bed saved the resort.) They contacted their friends in Thailand, ascertained that the neighboring village's fishing fleet had been lost and there was no livelihood even when the villagers could return. In Los Angeles, my friends started an e-mail hunt for funds to directly help the village with instructions on how to e-mail funds to still-working banks there, and by the time they got to Thailand, , they had enough money to start rebuilding that village's fishing fleet. No red tape delay, no middle man to take a cut of the aid.

A. That's an example (to me) that there is a flip side to this "way humans are" and B. That we are now more capable than ever, thanks to modern communication, to know about the needs worldwide and to respond.

 

[hmmnmm]

communication is a tool that tends to encourage more civilized behavior?

 

[sr71plt]

communication is a tool that tends to civilize?

I don't know if I'd say that. I'd have to think long and hard on that. Communication probably can confuse and foment trouble as much as anything else (evidence what our presidental campaigns have come to in the States), is my initial response. Like my response to your statement of the human condition, I think it probably goes both ways.

 

[human_male]

I think we all individually evolve at a different rate, and some choose not to evolve at all. Some strive to rise above our violent, base, primitive instincts and some embrace them and wallow in them like pigs in filth. I personally don't think it's accurate to lump everyone together... humanities this or humanities that.

 

[hmmnmm]

I don't know if I'd say that. I'd have to think long and hard on that. Communication probably can confuse and foment trouble as much as anything else (evidence what our presidental campaigns have come to in the States), is my initial response. Like my response to your statement of the human condition, I think it probably goes both ways.

Any human can potentially use any tool on either side of the... the... you know what I mean. Giving/taking, killing/healing, bullying/nurturing, conquering/saving, and so on and on.

Trying not to think of it too much. But it's a bit boggling.

 

[hmmnmm]

I think we all individually evolve at a different rate, and some choose not to evolve at all. Some strive to rise above our violent, base, primitive instincts and some embrace them and wallow in them like pigs in filth. I personally don't think it's accurate to lump everyone together... humanities this or humanities that.

primitive instincts. that's what I was looking for. thanks. But do you think, no matter how far some evolve, that the primeval nature goes away? Isn't there the potential for it come up and envelope the human who thinks he or she has made sufficient progress? Or maybe it really thins out? Can it ever really go away?

Just wondering. though not too much longer. One of those morbid fascinations, you know.

 

[sr71plt]

Any human can potentially use any tool on either side of the... the... you know what I mean. Giving/taking, killing/healing, bullying/nurturing, conquering/saving, and so on and on.

Trying not to think of it too much. But it's a bit boggling.

Yes, and they can be internally complex at well. Caring in the community, nurturing at home, dictatorial in the office, and real shitheads on the Internet.

 

[hmmnmm]

Yes, and they can be internally complex at well. Caring in the community, nurturing at home, dictatorial in the office, and real shitheads on the Internet.

Not only are we multifaceted, but faced - multifaced. or masked. Multimasked. Multitaskers.

Whoa! Stop it! Not this late. blurry vision.

Pretty interesting though.

 

[hmmnmm]

So erotic fantasies set to words could be a good medicine for mankind. Furtherance of civility and good will. But maybe not necessarily.

 

[sr71plt]

So erotic fantasies set to words could be a good medicine for mankind. Furtherance of civility and good will. But maybe not necessarily.

probably would do womankind a bit of good too.

 

[hmmnmm]

Oh no doubt.
All of humanity.
Humanitarianism.

 

[hmmnmm]

And thanks to the wonders of an online discussion, this miniature mental crisis is a mere fuzzy outline compared to what it was. Sleep should come easier now.

 

[human_male]

primitive instincts. that's what I was looking for. thanks. But do you think, no matter how far some evolve, that the primeval nature goes away? Isn't there the potential for it come up and envelope the human who thinks he or she has made sufficient progress? Or maybe it really thins out? Can it ever really go away?

Just wondering. though not too much longer. One of those morbid fascinations, you know.

Maybe it never goes away. We're all evolved from predators and none of us would be here if our ancestors hadn't be prepared to face off against the saber toothed cats and bears and mutants.

But we all possess the ability to rise above those instincts.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Here's how we've changed:

In order to do great violence to other human beings, we've got to believe that they don't share our humanity. Insofar as we can convince ourselves that other people aren't human, we're animals.

Insofar as we can convince ourselves that other people are as human as we are, we're civilized and safe from the kind of barbarous cruelty we've inflicted in the past.

It's empathy that separates us from beastliness. Anytime we lose our ability to see others as human, we become animals ourselves.

That's all there is to it.

 

[Liar]

But at the same time (simultaneous!), the utterly incomprehensible depths of cruelty that humans yet inflict on each other... and then you glance through history. Think we've really changed much? Maybe outwardly but not inherently. Not at all. The capability I mean.

Civilized! That's what started it. We pat ourselves on the back, because we view ourselves as civilized. But what does that mean? Are we really?

Humans are humans. We are capable of all those things, wonderful or terrible. Which we do depends largely on what we surround ourselves with. Circumstances and tools. Those set the playing field for humsn free will.

If we choose to do good or bad, depends on free will and circumstances. What we call "civilized" is merely a set of positive circumstances we've surrounded ourselves with, things like high standard of living, good communication infrastructure, high level of knowledge and a system of laws and moral and cultural codes. Those makes it easier to do good, and harder to do bad. But we are still free to do bad, if we choose.

How much good and how much bad? Depends on the available tools. And free will. Even if you have the capacity to nuke me from orbit, you can choose not to.

Now, there are many many people. Most go through their lives choosing to do good. And most who choose to do bad, choose to restrain themselves in their choice of tool and magnitude.

But ever so often, the wrong people get hold of the wrong tools. And makes all the wrong choices.

That's the price we pay for free will.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm with Zoot.

It's empathy and imagination that separate us from the animals.

Some people aren't born with significant amounts of these traits. And some refuse to use these gifts. These are the ones that cause the problems. It's worse when the people that could oppose them don't.

One thing though. War, as we understand, that is without restraint and to absolute victory, is a civilized thing. 'Primitives' always have cultural norms that limit violence.

 

[xssve]

I believe the traits you refer to were largely driven by the second stage of economic evolution, pastoralism. In the first stage, hunter/gatherer (HG), there are territorial and breeding disputes, but outside a few relatively closed ecosystems, New Guinea for example, warfare, when it was practiced, tended towards the non-lethal variety, more intimidation, less bloodshed and/or outright genocide.

With pastoralism came two things, a more sedentary way of life that made pastoralists more vulnerable to predators, human or otherwise, and the adaptations to these stressors: martialization, and a range of milititant behaviors, watchstanding, etc.

The second effect is the process of domestication and selective breeding which are distinct behaviors dealing with operant conditioning that lead to shifts in value formation - suddenly there are not only the "strong" and the "weak", but there is a metaphor for the weak that didn't previously exist, i.e., as domesticated labor.

There are other exteralities: pastoral cultures tended towards polygyny, which means more unnattached males wandering around to make trouble - the Goddess cults tended to form around groves, the early beginings of agriculture, and they tended towards polyandry, but eventually clashed with the pastoral cultures at whose hands they fared badly, being less martialized.

By the time agriculture proper emerged, pastoral values were deeply ingrained in culture - the upper castes retained the external values of HG culture, while applying pastoral values to the lower castes in varying degrees of intensity.

In the middle ages for example, as Malthusian population pressures shrank hunting territories, the forests where game could be found increasingly became preserves for the aristocracy to hunt - much of republican identity today is predicated on guns and their status as hunters, vegetarians and animal rights activists the objects of mockery and derision: real men hunt.

At the same time, it becomes much easier to dehumanize the less ambitious of your own culture, "sheep", "the herd" - "the flock" - and justify paternalistic control structures, and also easier to dehumanize competing cultures, they're "animals", "subhuman", etc., i.e., to overcome traits that inhibit intraspecies violence through the formation of abstracts castes and categories that tend to reinforce minor differences - the difference in IQ between the aristocratic and labor classes in Ireland for example, which did exists, were discovered to be largely attributable to diet - the wealthy ate better.

These distinctions become abstracted however, in a process of magical thinking that justifies economic and, subsequently resource imbalances - "blood" in the Middle ages, genetics in this age.

These imbalances themselves cause damage to the gene pool, malnutrition is a stressor that causes an organism to shift to more aggressive, less socialized behaviors - starving mammals, mice for example, eat their young and each other, humans can become psychopaths.

In the upper castes, in spite of better nutrition, lack of parental affection can have similar effects - throw in inbreeding and substance abuse, and you're getting degradation of the gene pool from both ends.

So yeah, we remain a social species largely in spite of civilization, not because of it.

 

[AvoidingRealWork]

Have you read Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer? An intelligent Neanderthal from a parallel universe accidentally gets sucked into our own. In his universe our species went extinct, and the Neanderthals became intelligent, sentient, and highly technological.

One thing that the Neanderthals never developed was agriculture. Their food-base was always hunter-gatherer, and still is today. They carefully manage game and wild fruit resources, and they keep their population low - the entire Neanderthal earth has a population around 150 million. This is achieved by placing the entire society on the rhythm method. People live with their same-sex mates most of the month, then mix it up with their opposite-sex mates during low-fertility times (all Neanderthal women are menstrually synchronized). That's right: the entire species is bisexual.

Because one Neanderthal can kill another with a single punch, they abhor violence of any sort. Crime is solved through eugenics: criminals, as well as parents and siblings of criminals, are sterilized. They have no religion - are in fact biologically incapable of faith in a God or afterlife - and the basis for their moral conduct is the possibility of wronging someone, and that person dying before reconciliation can be made and having to live with the knowledge that that wrong can never be righted.

Our Neanderthal hero learns that not only have we wiped out Mammoths (his favorite food - "You killed all of them?!") but that the slaughter of other species continues unabated today, and we were probably responsible for the demise of his own. Needless to say he becomes very depressed.

The homo sapiens characters in the story - mostly Canadian scientists - are very sorry for what we have done. It becomes apparent that we as a species are aware of our destructive nature - perhaps this is what "original sin" is all about - and at the same time feel powerless to do anything about it.

Part of being human is to recognize the inhumanity of humanity. Part of being a better human is to overcome the dark side of our nature.

 

[hmmnmm]

Whoa! Heavy duty nutrition, and at this early hour. Thoughts are not collected. First impression was the feeling of assuring hands on my shoulder, people who know I'm a peaceable sort, "Relax. Society is safe from you." Yeah, true. Today. And tomorrow. But what about Germany 1938? If I was there then and as myself now, I think my future wouldn't have been too bright or pastoral. Because I just don't care for authority figures or uniforms, and marches are a drag. For an instance. But that's easy to say from this safe distance, though it isn't a far space. How can I be certain I wouldn't have gone to a rally and been caught up with the rest of them? Can't be certain.

Or, if recruiters were going around town and they came to me and said, "How would you like to learn to fly a Zero and crash it and yourself into an aircraft carrier?"

"Hmmm, nah, rather not. Doesn't really turn me on. I mean, the emperor, he seems like an okay dude, but... thanks but no thanks."

But how do I know? Can't know. Just a couple easy ones. Go down through history and pick an insanity. How does one know they wouldn't have been among the insane? Because they didn't think they were the insane when they were in the thick of it.

And the thoughts rebel now.

Gonna go pastorally ponder (always loved the word, 'pastoral'. Don't know why. And 'idyll'. Pastorously idyllical).

 

[hmmnmm]

Shortly after presenting this thread, I wanted to try to balance it with a thread to talk up all the good that humans do, have done... but that's remained an empty thread. I think that's no coincidence.

Maybe the good we do is actually so common by now that we take it for granted, don't really notice it? And the atrocities appear all the bigger because of their rarity?

But then why the fascination? That remains. Most of us do not cross the line from that fascination into action. But some do sometimes.

Guess that's the nut: I know we don't. The vast majority of the civilized population doesn't. But we all still could. It isn't a mystery, just a truth that I never thought about much before.

 

[xssve]

It bears remembering.

 

[sr71plt]

Shortly after presenting this thread, I wanted to try to balance it with a thread to talk up all the good that humans do, have done... but that's remained an empty thread. I think that's no coincidence.

Or perhaps it's because there was no need for two threads discussing essentially the same thing and this one was first.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you live long enough you discover there is no justice or fairplay in life. Then you start cutting throats when no one is looking.