Society isn't something that happens in a sudden shift; it's something that evolves by necessity in growing populations.
It started with the fairly obvious biological imperative of family. We're built to carry and care for children much longer than most, and the continuation of the species depends on the well-being of children. Family dynamics naturally arise from this; sticking together for a long time grants the highest rate of survival. That dynamic transitions very smoothly into nomadic band societies, which generally consisted of 10-20 people. Through combined effort they are able to gather more resources more quickly than on their own, and live happier lives as a result.
This is where the cycle of domestication began to show. Early man found that by manipulating the environment they could raise the carrying capacity (the ability of the environment to support greater populations) of their land and allow people to live longer and have more children. The population would then grow and necessitate greater manipulation of the environment, raising the carrying capacity and allowing the population to grow further, and so on. It began with horticulture which, in the anthropological sense, means cultivating and harvesting food from the environment without planting it. This produced a greater amount of food at a higher labor investment, which caused people to create camps around natural resources. The combination of a greater caloric intake and reduction of travel lead to more body fat, and thus more fertility. This means that the population grew and forced man to domesticate further, leading to the neolithic agricultural revolution. Because of the greater stability and predictability that agricultural societies allowed over hunter-gathering and horticulture, it was in everyone's best interest to maintain social order. From that need sprang religion (the earliest form of law), shamen, wise men, and "big men" (the earliest forms of leaders and government).
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. There is very little about the creation and growth of society that is completely mysterious.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying we've evolved into animals who build society, that the biological imperative for society is an evolutionary gain?
Then why is it that, as I've pointed out, children need to be taught these things? We are not born with this inherent knowledge. We are taught right and wrong, how to behave, how to work within society, etc. It's not something genetic, something we inherit, or something we develop, it's something we're taught. From a young age, we are told we need to work within society, and it is imprinted onto us for as long as we can remember.
You'd be surprised just how much of that is genetic, actually. Humans are indeed born with the capacity for co-operation and some sense of right and wrong. However, these innate traits are comparatively primitive, and as advanced societies we build upon these basic traits through a process of education.
But we don't start this way, biologically we only ever consider ourselves.
That's not true. Our capacity for empathy is an evolved trait.
The argument for why people developed societal relations is for "selection pressure," but this there are still other options. Society wasn't the only way for a single person to survive, anyone could've very easily worked only for themselves and lived happily. No one had the foresight to realize more could be gained through large-scale cooperation.
That's the real beauty of evolution - no one needs to have that foresight. Individual humans would have a pretty damn hard time surviving on their own; at the very least, taking care of children is a necessity, and so family structure arises. Even then, a family would have a pretty hard time surviving on its own without a larger tribal group. Working together in a group of 10-20 people is a heck of a lot better. As for large-scale co-operation - on the order of thousands, millions, billions of humans, that has taken a long time for humans to manage; indeed, we still aren't very good at it, and innately we remain a tribal species. That in itself is strong evidence that our co-operation is an evolved mechanism.
If anything, they would've cooperated, then betrayed each other to gain more from their victory.
Except if everyone betrays everyone, then everyone is worse off for it. That's the reason why the drive for revenge arose - and that's the reason we punish those who go against our societies.
I don't think that's warranted until we see his response (if any); he is, after all, an intelligent person, and unlike 99.99% of the Internet, worthy of being on the FRC forums
I don't think that's warranted until we see his response (if any); he is, after all, an intelligent person, and unlike 99.99% of the Internet, worthy of being on the FRC forums
I have no response at the moment, I need to consider this more. I still don't like it, but I don't have an argument at the moment.
It appears that's become the preferred conjugation, though it wasn't in my college logic courses a decade ago. But there are still college curriculum pages listing "ignoratium."
In any case, I don't suspect he'll follow up on his promise unless he's challenged directly and vigorously. Axel's motivations and follow-up, historically on this board, have been inconsistent at best.
My follow-up? No one has ever asked me to follow up.
I am hanging out with friends right now, and have a busy day tomorrow, but I plan on thinking about all this at some point, because I don't entirely disagree with everything you said, I just need to figure out what my thoughts are.
That's good, but first you should spend some time investigating what the facts are. It seems pretty clear from things that you've posted that you only have a fairly superficial understanding of evolution. If you haven't read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, now would be the perfect time.
I loved my ex because I hated myself. Really, the fact that anyone could even think, as wrong as she was, that they loved me in a romantic way...That's why I ultimately fell for her. Sure, there was cuteness, sexual tension, other stuff that is typical relationship stuff. But the thing that bound us together for as short a time as it did was me treating her as someone really high above me, because I didn't value myself at all. As I tried to convince myself that I really loved her and that it was valid, a lot of my reasons can ultimately be rationalized as my responses to hating myself and who I am. Really, just...Wow. I am messed up. In a lot of ways.
the fact that anyone could even think that they loved me in a romantic way...That's why I ultimately fell for her.
Wow. I am messed up. In a lot of ways.
No, you're pretty much just like everyone else. This is a basic principle of interpersonal attraction. We like people who like us. This alone does not make you a messed up person. You recognize that you have some self-esteem things to work out, but being attracted to someone just because they are attracted to you is very textbook. You shouldn't worry too much about that.
That's good, but first you should spend some time investigating what the facts are. It seems pretty clear from things that you've posted that you only have a fairly superficial understanding of evolution. If you haven't read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, now would be the perfect time.
Also recommended: anything by EO Wilson. His books Sociobiology, Consilience, and The Superorganism are a framework for the modern-day view of altruism, empathy, compassion, and society as a product of evolution. He's also a secular-humanist deist who believes that science and religion will be around forever, and both need to learn to work together. Dawkins will tell you we're reproductively selfish, and that's a fact. Wilson will tell you that we're born to be societal and altruistic; this also seems to be supported by modern science. They're not mutually exclusive.
Also, have a laptop handy for reference when you try to tackle Sociobiology. It's 697 pages, and unless you're a bio major, it's not light reading.
The U.S. still allows and even condones torture and no one cares. That is the most depressing thing I have to say today, and it's pretty damned depressing.
The U.S. still alows and even condones torture and no one cares.
Ummm.. Wait a minute. We don't allow torture, we may still be arguing what is torture but I'm pretty sure we are not currently torturing.
In my opinion, and it may be an extreme opinion, not prosecuting those bastards who did it during the Bush Administration is tantamount to allowing it. It certainly denotes toleration of it.
not prosecuting those bastards who did it during the Bush Administration is tantamount to allowing it
I wouldn't go that far. It's a political decision, and a perfectly understandable one.
But I want a politician who has the balls to come out and say, "This was wrong, we were wrong for doing it, and we're going to take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again." Even a symbolic sentence would send a strong message.
The U.S. still alows and even condones torture and no one cares.
Ummm.. Wait a minute. We don't allow torture, we may still be arguing what is torture but I'm pretty sure we are not currently torturing.
We are waterboarding. Waterboarding is listed as a form of torture in the U.S. Army Field Manual. Hence, we are torturing.
Edit: Okay, apparently Obama banned the use of waterboarding back in '09, so we may not be currently torturing (I honestly don't know offhand what so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are currently allowed).
Yeah, sure, we're not waterboarding. Doesn't mean we're not using cold cells, pressure positions, and sleep deprivation. Obama never put a stop to that.
Okay, apparently Obama banned the use of waterboarding back in '09, so we may not be currently torturing (I honestly don't know offhand what so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are currently allowed).
Yeah, sure, we're not waterboarding. Doesn't mean we're not using cold cells, pressure positions, and sleep deprivation. Obama never put a stop to that.
Of course, if those techniques aren't banned in the Army Field Service Manual, they one may argue they aren't torture. They'd also be acceptable to use against our own soldiers if captured by hostile forces. Unfortunately, a 30 second Googling doesn't turn up any free, relatively recent copies of the AFSM to peruse for acceptable interrogation techniques.
Comments
It started with the fairly obvious biological imperative of family. We're built to carry and care for children much longer than most, and the continuation of the species depends on the well-being of children. Family dynamics naturally arise from this; sticking together for a long time grants the highest rate of survival. That dynamic transitions very smoothly into nomadic band societies, which generally consisted of 10-20 people. Through combined effort they are able to gather more resources more quickly than on their own, and live happier lives as a result.
This is where the cycle of domestication began to show. Early man found that by manipulating the environment they could raise the carrying capacity (the ability of the environment to support greater populations) of their land and allow people to live longer and have more children. The population would then grow and necessitate greater manipulation of the environment, raising the carrying capacity and allowing the population to grow further, and so on. It began with horticulture which, in the anthropological sense, means cultivating and harvesting food from the environment without planting it. This produced a greater amount of food at a higher labor investment, which caused people to create camps around natural resources. The combination of a greater caloric intake and reduction of travel lead to more body fat, and thus more fertility. This means that the population grew and forced man to domesticate further, leading to the neolithic agricultural revolution. Because of the greater stability and predictability that agricultural societies allowed over hunter-gathering and horticulture, it was in everyone's best interest to maintain social order. From that need sprang religion (the earliest form of law), shamen, wise men, and "big men" (the earliest forms of leaders and government).
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. There is very little about the creation and growth of society that is completely mysterious.
As for large-scale co-operation - on the order of thousands, millions, billions of humans, that has taken a long time for humans to manage; indeed, we still aren't very good at it, and innately we remain a tribal species. That in itself is strong evidence that our co-operation is an evolved mechanism. Except if everyone betrays everyone, then everyone is worse off for it. That's the reason why the drive for revenge arose - and that's the reason we punish those who go against our societies.
In any case, he admits that he has no response and needs time to study the science. Hopefully that's what he'll do.
In any case, I don't suspect he'll follow up on his promise unless he's challenged directly and vigorously. Axel's motivations and follow-up, historically on this board, have been inconsistent at best.
I am hanging out with friends right now, and have a busy day tomorrow, but I plan on thinking about all this at some point, because I don't entirely disagree with everything you said, I just need to figure out what my thoughts are.
I loved my ex because I hated myself. Really, the fact that anyone could even think, as wrong as she was, that they loved me in a romantic way...That's why I ultimately fell for her. Sure, there was cuteness, sexual tension, other stuff that is typical relationship stuff. But the thing that bound us together for as short a time as it did was me treating her as someone really high above me, because I didn't value myself at all. As I tried to convince myself that I really loved her and that it was valid, a lot of my reasons can ultimately be rationalized as my responses to hating myself and who I am. Really, just...Wow. I am messed up. In a lot of ways.
Also, have a laptop handy for reference when you try to tackle Sociobiology. It's 697 pages, and unless you're a bio major, it's not light reading.
But I want a politician who has the balls to come out and say, "This was wrong, we were wrong for doing it, and we're going to take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again." Even a symbolic sentence would send a strong message.
Edit: Okay, apparently Obama banned the use of waterboarding back in '09, so we may not be currently torturing (I honestly don't know offhand what so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are currently allowed).