XPost: alt.politics.socialism, alt.politics
[This seems to carry the wrong subject (originate somewhere else).]
Roger Johansson wrote:
>Originally published in alt.comp.freeware:
>On Apr 21, 5:04 am, "Dan544" wrote:
>-
>> I have been here for a few months now.
>> John Corilss.. I have had enough of your posts.
>> No more being intimidated with this group and guys like you.
>-
>
>You have understood the main problem in this group, and correctly
>identified JC as the leader of this cultural pattern.
>-
>You are probably not aware of how old this cultural pattern is and how
>widespread it is. This bully culture has controlled big parts of the
>world for thousands of years, and it is the cause of all violence,
>torture, slavery, bullying, child abuse, wars, terrorism and social
>dominance which has held back the development of a modern and harmonic
>society.
>
>We can find the roots of this culture in the stone age social pattern
>based on social dominance built on anger and violence.
I think that is not the case, yet it is true. Seeking social domination
through violence and lies, all the strategies of war, is a behavioral
adaptation to the threat of predators/prey war interaction. The interaction
between predator and prey involves not just fighting claw to teeth, it
also involves deception and speedy movement. A very important part of
survival for many species, is to be able to survive a confrontation with
predator or prey. There were birds on some island, and they had never
seen a snake. Then snakes came in the land through human ships or
aircraft, the birds didn't know what to do and went extinct. This is
an odd example, but imagine a kind of animal that can not run and can
not fight, it does not hide. It does not fight over mating rights with
others of its kind. Unfortunately this friendly animal does not have
a lot of survival chances compared to for instance a deer. A deer can
run, it tries to look for threats to evade, and it can fight. Some
deers can even free their young when it is caught, using their horns.
When animals fight with themselves over mating rights, what would happen
if always the loser of the fight was allowed to mate, rather then the
winner. Obviously the species would continue to become worse at all
the tactics that involve fighting within the species. But the winner
is always allowed to mate, therefore the children will become better
at those qualities. And those qualities are extremely important as long
as there are predators. But even if there are no predators, they will
likely re-evolve (has already been observed with fish [documentary]).
A very interesting example are the chimps and the bonobo, the bonobo
is called the "dwarf" chimp. Maybe that is due to the bonobo not fighting
while the chimps are, and big chimps tend to win more fights, hence the
big chimps have more children compared to the bonobo way of doing things.
End results seem to be that the dwarf chimp (on the other side of the
river), is a somewhat weaker fighter. This is probably not good in the
long run, though it depends on exactly what type of threats there are.
It may also be that there is a long period of drought, which the smaller
chimps could just outlive and the bigger couldn't. Anything is possible,
evolution is complicated. Fighting within a species is also not the
only way to become better fighters, because confrontations with predators
also produce better fighters automatically. It is just that infighting
for mating rights (and other), makes the evolution of fighting capabilities
go faster, basically a game of eugenics. Humanity played this game quite
openly until a few hundred years ago. Fighting over a lady was common
and considered natural. Which is was, it is exactly the kind of behavior
that so many animals engage in.
Humanity being evolved from apes, which evolved from lemurs, which evolved
from ... ... ..., somewhere along the line we probably encounter a past
where infighting had a eugenics advantage, to make us stronger fighters.
Hence, the social domination game, war, deception, lying, greed, all
those things (interestingly called "inherited sin" is some religions,
how exactly correct indeed!), they can be traced to the predator/prey
interaction and the behavioral adaptation to it. So though the root goes
through the stone age, I think it goes back a lot further, to a time it
wasn't just the way it was, but it was good and necessary. Currently it
is equally out of place, because humanity does not face the threat of
another hand-to-claw fighting animal. We can defeat any animal by pulling
the trigger of an AK-47 (etc). When we still fought with bow and arrow,
fighting had some use. It made stronger muscles/bones prevail, and that
could mean the difference between life and death in confrontations with
animals such as wolves or lions. Even those days are gone, you don't even
need to aim with an AK-47, and reportedly it almost never jams up. You
don't need to be afraid that it will come to hand-to-claw combat with a
wolves or lion, for which you would want to have back-up powers such as
a mean left hook.
Interesting about this is, how quickly people have become used to cars,
TV's and refrigerators. The days that wolves were feared monsters are
so recent that it is practically yesterday. That can explain the continuation
of violence today, the violence is in-bred in humanity. Conditions and
technology may change in an evolutionary instant, but what has been build
up over tens and hundreds of millions of years doesn't evaporate so
quickly. Maybe knowing how it works may help.
There is a counter argument possible against this, which says that `it
is the winning fighting animal which survives and breeds, not because
of evolutionary advantages for the species, but because it is just always
the fighter who pushes away the loser.' I guess there is some truth in
that. However in the long run it is species against species. If in
fighting was bad for long term survival of the entire species, then in
the long run the in fighting species would probably disappear, and species
that are less internally violent would continually be at an advantage,
until it was all gone somehow.
I guess this theory is perfect as a new world religion, because it is
socially progressive and hard science. Everyone can agree with it, and
the beauty is that it provides iron clad morality. The very problem
which has always been so hard to pin down and make real, to make the
hard argument in favor of it.
>It has used manipulation and violence to create super-humans who
>dominate weaker souls with their hardened and trained minds.
It is the way of the naked animal. Interesting point about technology
is that more random specimen survive. Those random specimen not
primarily bred for violence, that is us. We oppose the violence, where
we before would have been eaten away by predators.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
