(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

An "idle thought" inspired by the conversion on my recent entries about pleasure restriction.

Human civilization is only possible because we are predators.

Comments

[weishaupt.livejournal.com]

Predatorial behaviour certainly helped us make it to where we are today, but we have no challenging prey left and have turned on each other. It's turned into something we have to out-evolve. It's an appendix.

[liminalia.livejournal.com]

Explain please? Do you mean that in the beginning, we only made tools to hunt and process prey, and would not have done so if we were herbivores?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

No, it's more fundamental than that. Civilization is a sublimated form of predation. The mindset that caused us to create structured societies is descended from the mental acuity that allows us to divide the world into predators and prey. Civilization -- in a scarcity situation -- depends on exploitation and social stratification.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

The question, as weishaupt pointed out, is whether we will be able to evolve beyond it. This goal comes hand-in-hand with the accomplishment of post-scarcity.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

A long time ago I studied paristology. The professor spoke of how almost all predatory organisms began as killers. Relatively swift killers. But then the organism was out of a host. Some of the offspring survived, but not many. Over time, predatory organisms developed into parasites which slowly drained life force from the host, but did not kill or harm so much that the organism could not survive. And over a lot more time, the most successful parasites evolved into saprophyes, which neiehter helped nor harmed the host organism. And some of thjese further evolved into symbiotes. In symbiosis, both organisms flourish because of the presence of the other. Some symbiotes have evolved to the point where two organisms become needed so that either can survive. Lichen is a good example of this.

Some scientists are now beginning to see that a human without any internal organisms could not survive. In Greg Bear's "Darwin's Children" he goes into this in detail.


Now, bacteria divide every 20 minutes. So evolution of species is rather swift. Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to evolve thru memes as well as genes, so even though our generation time is vastly longer than 20 minutes, we have the potential to evolve at a relatively rapid rate because of memetic changes on top of genetic changes.

Predation is one extreme of human interaction. However, it is (like various plagues) very inneficient when it comes to long term survival. It seems to me that those cultures which evolve into mutually beneficial behaviors have a much greater chancde of long-term prosperity, not just survival.

uh huh

[novasoy.livejournal.com]

That is one way of looking at it. A very compelling school of thought or paradigm or whatever in Political Science that says, essentially, "The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must." (Thucydides, Pelopennesian War) In other words, there are strong people and weak people. The strong overwhelm the weak. And this is what many call human nature. Whether or not one thinks this can be changed, I guess, divides people into realist and idealist camps.

But this predator/prey thing... I think this has been the trend thoughout history, and taking it one step further to call the relationship one of predator-prey is appropriate in most cases.

The stronger elements of society feed upon the weak and derive much from them -- resources, labor, cannon fodder. The weak derive almost nothing from the relationship other than what can at best be described as security. It is security in a sense, but it is the security one gets in a prison.

Another way to look at it is that the relationship is like the one between the gangster and the "civilian" in a classic protection racket. The gangster extorts from the civilian under the guise of exchanging cash for security. In truth, if the civilian refuses, the main thing he has to worry about is the gangster himself. And if he accepts the gangster's protection, he is still under subjugation from the gangster, who may still extort and persecute the civilian, who is effectively helpless.

This oppressor/oppressed way of looking at history is a very interesting one. Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" is the classic example. I tend to agree with it completely.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Not so...
Civilization is possible because human being are social, tool using animals. Cooperation is vital to the survival of humans. If humans did not have a strong inclination to cooperation, most of them would never put up with the crap they do.
This is the trouble with extremely individualistic philosophies - it is nearly impossible for a human to live well or long without the help of other humans. Even hermits come out to trade or buy human made goods occasionally.
But because we are predators, we have a strong inclination towards violence or agression as well. In order to assure our survival, societies spring up which provide enforced guidelines of what type of agressive behavior is allowed, towards whom, and at what times.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I often wonder what civilization would be like if it had come about in a species of herbavores rather than in humans.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

That's an important part of it, but IMO, being social, tool-using, meme-spreading animals is a sufficient condition for civilization but not a necessary one. IMO the predatory outlook is the necessary condition.

I could turn out to be wrong, of course; this is a matter I'm still investigating. But as civilization everywhere on the globe has been extremely stratified, racist, abusive of children, restrictive of women -- with only modern culture as an exception -- the only view that makes sense is to consider stratification to be inevitable -- until we learn how to supercede it.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

OIC - are you talking about civilization as opposed to society?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

OIC
I was confusing my terns then. SO perhaps you are right.
I reserve the right to argue with you at any time and about things which are completely ridiculous though because I'm just an annoying gf that way! :P

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I really hate it when I confuse my terns. Usually I confuse them with albatrosses but sometimes I even confuse them with owls!

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

's okay. I've told you, I find argument to be stimulating. :-D

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Should I tie you up and argue with you sometime then? Oh wait, you didn't read the email I sent you yet, did you...

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Checking...

::reads email::

Ooh!

Answering...

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

errata -- when I say that modern society is an "exception" I don't mean that it is without stratification, just that it is the only period in history where there has been a sustained and concerted effort to overcome stratification.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Does all stratification depend upon oppression though? And since there are some civilizations which were lost, can we really say they ALL were like this?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

There are always exceptions, but if civilizations that weren't stratified existed at one time, the fact that they don't exist anymore might be itself demonstration of the truth of my assertion. Egalitarian cities would find it hard to compete economically against neighboring cities who were willing to put slaves to work in the fields, and who have the machinery in place to force all of the males over, say, 13, to pick up a sword and go out into battle.

Stratification boils down to the threat of violence -- as those who oppose it often discover when the latent violence becomes overt. So, yeah, stratification is hand-in-hand with oppression.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I think I am confusing stratification with specialization, probably.
Damn terns, gulls, etc... :)

[sable-twilight.livejournal.com]

Human civilization (and I mean this in terms of social units larger then the basic tribe) is only possible because we have beer (and other intoxicants).

Look at anthropology. The one thing in common with every civilization they have in common is some sort of brewed, beer like intoxicant. I don't think this is coincidence. I don't think we would have settled without it. And I think the allure of beer is probably what got us to settled in the first place. We needed to settle to make it in large quantities. I think we discovered how to make it by accident – a stash of gain some place accidentally got wet and fermented – we're smart enough to figure it out from there.

That's my personal theory anyway.

[cktraveler.livejournal.com]

Ultimately the history of humanity is the history of class struggle, the battle between the haves and the have-nots.

What it is that the haves have changes over time. It used to be personal strength; then it became the ability to command those with personal strength. Nowadays it seems to be the ability to move businesses from one place to another, and the ability to move hatred from one place to another through demagoguery ... proving that, no matter how much the human race changes, the nastiest weapon in our arsenal is still the jawbone of an ass.

[threeandnine.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, we may be able to exist as predators, but we succeed as conquerors. And I mean that in the most optimistic sense of the word.