or tomorrow should have been the number one question asked for milleniae according to Atle. The
species of homo sapiens sapiens has faced famine as long as he/she has made
footprints on this planet. The Grim Reaper has made an ample harvest every year
due to starvation.
However, what is not mentioned is that we probably are too
many people on this planet. There are limited resources of everything, and the
Earth cannot take an unlimited number of people. Having a good life is not only about eating and
filling your belly even if that is the important thing if you do not have
enough food.
Eating green, living green, driving green, green energy,
doing everything the green way is probably only a scam originating in the
richer part of the world to create more profits for those of us who have more
than we need.
In Atle’s opinion, biased as he is, this is only the logical
outcome of the workings of a species who has the genius of naming itself ”homo
sapiens sapiens” regardless of the other species which have been here much
longer than us.
If you don’t want to bother about clicking these links here
you have an article by the same author (albeit an immense digression on the
part of Atle still quite interesting)
-
http://hilgart.org/enformy/$politic.html
Natural Human
Political Behavior
© 1993 Donald E.
Watson
"Man is a reasoning
animal," declared Seneca. But he was describing a theoretical ideal. Real
humans reason as cats swim: They can do it, but they avoid it whenever
possible.
Reasoning requires effort and
discipline; it certainly isn't automatic. Therefore, instead of using their
advanced brain to cultivate their gift of abstract thought, typical humans use
their primitive brain to think, believe, behave, and vocalize. Because this
makes them slaves to their primal drives, humans prefer shouting to debating,
fisticuffs to philosophy, and physical fitness to mental fitness.
As a species, humanity expresses
its undeveloped mentality through its political behavior, which does not differ
significantly from the social behavior of other animals. That is, human
political behavior is driven by the same instincts that guide the behavior of
sheep, wildebeests, and other herding animals. For example, the majority of
humans stampede to join the herds, or "bandwagons," of charismatic
leaders. There, they delight in winning decisive victories, though it isn't
always clear exactly what they win. Nevertheless, having won, the majority
regards minorities as losers, unfit to participate in the activities of the
herd. That's democracy as we know it.
Included with the instincts to
follow leaders is the warning that straggling invites predators. Yet, a
minority of humans do straggle, preferring to override their instincts with
their own thinking. In the history of humankind, a few such non-herd
individuals have produced the ideas and inventions that account for what is
romantically, but unrealistically, termed the "ascent of man."
Naturally, members of the herd shun these stragglers as pariahs.
Still, the herd adopts a select few
of their technological products, particularly those that entertain them, or
support their destructive urges. Of course, giving potentially destructive
tools to instinct-ridden political leaders is like giving loaded guns to a
party of six-year-olds: Sooner or later, a catastrophe will occur.
After the atomic bombs were
detonated in Japan, Albert Einstein observed, "Everything has changed,
except human nature." He was noting that humans destroy each other with
any available tools. In this way, leaders invite mass extinction by turning the
products of abstract thought against their own species. In other words, in
their advanced brains, most humans carry a powerful potential resource for
adaptation and survival, but since they don't know how to use it, they abuse
it. Moreover, they do this to popular acclaim.
Popular Opinion
Contrary to popular
opinion, popular opinion does not constitute truth. Nevertheless, when humans
gather in large herds, they think with one mind, and this mind assures them
that their numbers secure them from predators. The irony is, many leaders are
themselves predators, leisurely feasting on the minds, bodies, and property of
their followers. Many other leaders are simply compelled to lead, regardless of
their mental fitness to do so. Thus, as pods of whales beach themselves by following
their surrogate thinkers, humans obliviously, but fashionably, flock to their
deaths.
One herding trait obvious in
political behavior is caucusing in exclusive cliques. Cliques organize human
behavior by relieving their members of reasoning for themselves: The group's
dominant members determine the beliefs, values, and behaviors of all the
members. This is agreeably efficient, for each clique requires only one mind.
Indeed, typical humans carry this characteristic over to larger groups: mobs
and political parties. Clique mentality probably indicates a natural limit on
the size of human flocks. That is, typical humans can't comprehend huge herds
as collections of individuals. To distinguish friends from foes, they must rely
on uniforms, if not literal, then figurative--e.g., religion, ethnicity, or
skin color.
Humans are herded by strong
personalities because instinct merely requires following leaders; it does not
compel evaluating their abilities and motives. This would require reasoning,
and instinct doesn't reason. Yet, though their political behavior is not
rational, humans do rationalize: They contrive specious reasons for their
behaviors after they act, not before. Then, to save themselves further mental
work, they crystallize these rationalizations in the language and other symbols
of their political mythologies.
These icons develop lives of their
own, for they disguise primal instincts, and distort potentially accurate
perceptions of reality. In these ways, the brutish nature of humanity masquerades
as political idealism, and distorted reality-testing postures as self-evident
truths. Hiding their subhuman behavior behind such curtains of meaningless
words, political leaders secure immunity from critical scrutiny by their
followers. This masquerade points to the major flaw in the evolution of
humanity: its capacity for speech.
Speaking vs Reasoning
Herds require effective
communication to maintain their coherence, and because speech is available to
humans, it is the principle organizer of human politics. Of course, to be
effective, the ideas expressed in political speech must be comprehensible to
the majority. Most members of the majority avoid serious intellectual tasks, so
human politics must be conducted at the lowest common denominator of thought.
And this level of thought is decidedly low.
The use of language is one of the
highest achievements of abstract thought. However, speech itself is quite
primitive. Children learn to speak several years before they can learn to
think--even before they can control their bowels and bladders. Indeed, for the
rest of their lives, most humans speak before they think.
Speech appears early in life
because the human brain possesses specific regions dedicated to the mechanics
of vocalizing and perceiving complex patterns of sounds. However, the brain
does not include regions dedicated to logic, judgment, or reality-testing.
That's why we humans are not inherently wise, discerning, or sagacious. Hence,
our species designation, Homo sapiens sapiens (tool-making bipedal
primate, wise, wise), is gratuitous: We are not born sapient; to acquire
wisdom, we must learn it.
As with any other acquired skill,
learning wisdom requires mastering an innate talent; in the case of language,
this talent is our capacity for abstract thought. Yet, our ability to master it
develops slowly, in four periods, as categorized by the Swiss scientist, Jean
Piaget.
Sensori-motor mentality
In our first two years of life (Piaget's
sensori-motor period), our mental capacity is limited to motor activity and
sensory learning. By the age of two, we can recognize and vocalize words, but
our brain does not support interpreting these sounds as abstractions. That's
why sensual words and phrases can drive behavior, regardless of whether they
carry meanings:
Rhythmic flowing streams
of words
Can soothe and still like lullabies.
But words that bite
Incite to fight.
Clearly, redundant
political chants and slogans are relics of infantile thinking.
Sensori-motor thinking is also revealed
in raucous shouting matches (usually called "debates" or
"discussions"), wherein contestants behave as though noise can
substitute for reason. Fortunately, humans can progress beyond this point in
their mental development.
Pre-operational thinking
From the ages of two to seven years (the
pre-operational period), we learn by rote, like parrots, using nouns for
labeling things, adjectives for describing things, and numbers for counting
things. To the brain, however, all linguistic symbols are equivalent, so it
does not matter whether the things named, described, and counted are real or
imagined. Thus, humans who don't progress beyond the pre-operational stage of
development can't discern the differences between reality and political
fiction. This deficiency makes them extremely vulnerable to manipulation by
opportunistic leaders.
Humans could reduce their
susceptibility to political manipulation by learning the rudiments of abstract
thinking, for example, that self-aggrandizing symbols such as
"sapiens," "reasoning animal," and "in the image of
God," are mere words, fanciful verbal constructs that lack any
correspondence to real human attributes. Of if they figured out the
implications of such words being learned by children--and by parrots.
It is critical to recognize and
understand the products of pre-operational mentality, for most human political
behavior is driven by two aspects of this deficient mode of abstract thought:
self-reference and animistic thinking.
As children, we are vulnerable to
reality distortions produced by our self-centered view of the world. These
perversions are typically expressed in the mental attribute of autistic
certainty, where "autistic" means self-generated without reference to
external reality, and "certainty" means the unequivocal conviction
that a particular belief constitutes knowledge of reality (Watson, 1993).
Autistic certainty is supported
solely by self-reference: "I would not believe something that is not true.
I believe [this]. Therefore, [this] must be true." Though self-reference
is absurd, its nonsense is lost on persons locked into pre-operational thinking.
If they don't outgrow this method of thinking, adults perceive themselves to be
the models for ideal humanity. In this way, their self-reference produces the
standards for "good" (like themselves) and "evil"
(different from themselves). They say, "If only everyone were like me, the
world would be perfect." Even if they don't say this aloud, they think it
privately, and act accordingly--that is, self-righteously.
Autistic certainty is reinforced by
a second characteristic of pre-operational thinking, animistic thinking. Using
animistic thinking, children attribute self-modeled qualities to other persons,
and even to lifeless objects. These qualities include self-awareness, free
will, and the spirits of good and evil.
In its most common political application,
animistic thinking is expressed as animistic labeling--that is, tagging whole
human beings with one-dimensional labels, as though they were possessed of
animating spirits that totally determine their thinking and behavior. Humans
use animistic labeling for the same reason they wear distinctive uniforms: They
can't comprehend strangers as complicated, sentient beings that differ very
little from themselves. That's why judges, preachers, journalists, and
politicians alike characterize fellow humans simply as good or evil, Jew or
Moslem, liberal or conservative, guilty or innocent, worthy or unworthy, and
gay or straight. Similarly, primitive thinking has been known to label entire
nations: as The Great Satan, for example, or The Evil Empire.
Though animistic labeling is a
product of pre-logical thought, it occurs regularly in humanity's most
respected institutions. Not only does it support holy wars, it produces the ad
hominem arguments popular in legal proceedings. In courtrooms, for example,
witnesses are regularly labeled as liars. Then, acting as though liars are
inhabited by the spirit of falsity, which categorically prevents their speaking
the truth, judges and juries dismiss their words as unbelievable. Witnesses
judged as credible, on the other hand, are wholly believed. Familiar with this
trait, persons who make their livings by lying--e.g., swindlers, salespersons,
prophets, politicians--conspicuously speak the truth, for it serves to
establish their credibility.
In their most malignant forms,
autistic certainty and animistic thinking drive the destructive behavior of
self-righteous persons: Certain that the spirit of good animates them, they
know they can do no evil. Therefore, they are justified in any kind of
violence, provided only that it is directed against "evil" ones.
Humans abusing abstract thought in this way routinely express themselves
through subhuman savagery. The irony is, though Serbian gunners aim their
weapons at Croats, human beings die, not the imaginary spirit of "Croatness."
In short, when blinded by autistic
certainty, persons are oblivious to external reality. Yet, guided by animistic
self-righteousness, they are aggressive in proclaiming their opinions.
Astonished that others don't appreciate their beliefs and values, they take
steps to correct these disbeliefs: If they can't verbally impose their beliefs
on the infidels, they kill them--if not literally, then figuratively. Such
thinking has written much of human history, and probably foreshadows its
future. Given today's arsenal of nuclear weaponry, and the willingness of
primitive humans to use it against each other, it is difficult to imagine how
humanity can escape a thermonuclear catastrophe, triggered by virtual
six-year-olds. Yet, humans are capable of higher levels of thinking than that.
Concrete Operations
Between the ages of seven and twelve (the
period of concrete operations), we can learn how abstractions apply to concrete
objects, e.g., "Two apples plus three apples equals five apples."
However, we can't yet grasp pure abstractions, for example, that two is the set
of all pairs. Because persons using concrete operations can use the language of
abstract thought without appreciating its significance, they regularly abuse
it, though unwittingly.
For example, adults abuse the
language of logic to disguise the illogic of fallacies such as non-sequitur
arguments. Even more popular is disengaging words from their original meanings,
and flinging them about as free agents to whimsically gather new meanings on the
fly. Though such concrete thinking is absurd, it is a staple of human political
behavior. Yet, these abuses are inexcusable, for most humans can learn to think
beyond the level of concrete operations.
Formal Operations
In our twelfth year, when we enter the
period of formal operations, we can begin to master our abstract thought. Then,
we can learn that we readily confuse our perceptions of reality and fiction,
for neither is more than a fleeting, abstract pattern of neuronal activity in
our brain. We can also learn that words are abstractions of abstractions: They
carry no intrinsic meaning, but merely symbolize our perceptions of reality or
fiction.
Because abstract thinking is so
powerful, humans who have mastered it can critically reflect on a wide range of
topics, including the complexities of government. Yet, this potential is never
realized by most humans, for their journey toward mastery is derailed in an
accident of nature: During the spring of life, when they could be learning the
elegant intricacies of abstract thought, the thoughts of young humans turn to a
primal biological imperative: the instinct to reproduce, as expressed as the
drive for sexual pleasure.
Despite its overriding influence,
the instinct to reproduce doesn't necessarily preclude mastering abstract
thought, for most humans are capable of enjoying both sex and thinking, though
at different times. Nonetheless, nature makes it difficult to learn to think,
for unlike the seasonal mating seasons of other animals, the human period of
reproduction is continual. Because human sexual physiology doesn't provide
respites for learning to think, to humans using primitive modes of thought, the
constancy of their mating season symbolizes the importance of mating, and
diminishes the importance of thinking.
In short, the sex drive naturally
entails ignoring mental fitness in favor of physical fitness. Moreover, with
their minds still governed by the thinking modes of childhood, members of each
sex carry their peculiar mating roles and rituals into their political
behavior.
Sexualized Politics
For subhuman males,
mating rituals take the form of physical contests for dominance, with nature's
promise of attractive females as prizes. Moreover, these characteristics of
primitive thinking translate directly to human behavior. In medieval times, for
example, male combatants marched to war flanked by women baring their breasts
to demonstrate what the men fought for. Today, cheerleaders fulfil this role,
displaying their assets to male athletes as they compete for dominance.
Similarly, female political groupies lavishly praise their men, urging them to
prevail--and thereby to prevent strange men from reaping the feminine harvest
of victory.
Subhuman mentality dictates much of
today's politics. For example, the notion of females exercising choice over
their reproductive resources is unthinkable to lower animals: Prizes don't
award themselves. If they did, the contests of males would be rendered
purposeless. As obvious as this primitive thinking is in dumb animals, it is
not self-evident in human politics, for politicians use the foggy verbiage of
religious dogma or political idealism to disguise the real trophies they
seek--sex and power. Nevertheless, as with the phallic displays of monkeys, human
political dominance is prominently symbolized by manly symbols: dangling
neckties, and penetrating weapons such as swords, guns, and missiles.
Humanity loses much in investing
its political behavior in male instincts, for females carry two instincts that
make them far better than males at organizing social behavior. First, they
dedicate themselves to posterity, not to the passions of the moment. This means
they think first of protecting their progeny, not destroying the progeny of
others. Second, females naturally appreciate the survival value of cooperation
and mutual dependency. This means they can comprehend peace as an active
process of economic interdependence, not merely as an interval between wars.
(Shupe, pp. 35-52).
These female qualities notwithstanding,
the war between the sexes, as fought in the political arena, is always won by
males. That's because instinct drives humans to resolve their conflicts by the
most decisive method. This is always the most primitive, and often the most
savage, because eliminating an enemy is far more decisive than negotiating with
him--or her.
Hence, male aggressiveness leaves
females only two choices in subhuman politics: Stay on the sidelines to cheer,
or blend into politics as a mock male. That's why the typical behavior of women
who join politics, like that of female whales that lead their pods, is
indistinguishable from males. Not only do they speak in familiar terms of
penetrating weapons, they often modify their physical appearance, adopting
neckties as phallic symbols of dominance, to emulate the male posture.
Hope for Healthy Politics
The ultimate outcomes of
using primitive mentality are familiar facts of life: First, the political
behavior of humans is driven by subhuman instincts because representative members
of the species never bother to master their capacity for abstract thought.
Second, typical humans learn to speak before they learn to think, and transform
their primitive mentality and patterns of speech into their political behavior.
Third, they institutionalize primitive thought by incorporating concrete,
imaginary perceptions of reality into their religious and political traditions.
And fourth, individuals who comprise human herds are easily manipulated by
their leaders who control them with seductive words. For example, humans engage
in self-destructive actions, following leaders who assure them that their
obedience entitles them to celestial immortality or worldly booty--depending on
whether the actions are holy or secular.
The ultimate result of humanity's
failure to master its capacity for reasoning is ironic: The same instincts that
have perpetuated the species in the first order operate to extinguish it in the
second order. Recognizing human political behavior as the natural product of instinctive
drives creates dreary prospects for the future of the species. Yet, where there
is potential, there is hope.
This hope, in turn, inspires the
question, "Is it possible for humanity to govern itself through democratic
rule?" The affirmative answer to this question follows from a
qualification of Seneca's assertion: "Humans are reasoning animals if they
are forced to think for themselves."
We know this, because opportunities
for independent thinking occur frequently during life crises, and many persons
prove adept at taking advantage of them. For example, many persons today
inherit the opportunity to find new careers when their old ones disappear. Many
others are confronted with ethical dilemmas surrounding the technically
prolonged deaths of their loved ones. In critical circumstances such as these,
many persons, perhaps the majority, can rise above clique mentality to resolve
these challenges by themselves. They may even find reasoning so rewarding, they
choose to develop their mental talents further (Watson, 1994a).
On the other hand, many other
persons remain slaves to primitive beliefs and superstitions they learned
before they were old enough to think for themselves. The most malignant of
these thought patterns is blind obedience to authority, for it annihilates the
discriminating thinking imposed by the responsibilities of democracy.
The bottom line is, we can assure
democratic rule only if we learn to respect mental fitness at least as much as
we revere physical fitness. For more than 30 years, the President's Council on
Physical Fitness and Sports has encouraged our young persons to develop their
physical potentials. Were our political leaders to listen, wisdom would counsel
them to invest no less in developing the uniquely human mental gifts of our
young. Yet, there is no corresponding Council on Mental Fitness. This absence
undoubtedly reflects the reason for political intolerance of advanced
individual thinking: Self-serving shepherds of human flocks would have much to
lose if their followers started thinking for themselves.
Conclusion
Obviously, many political
factors retard mental fitness. Therefore, the transformation from instinctive
to reasoning political behavior, if it could occur at all, would likely require
several generations. Given the lethal mixture of primitive politics and
powerful technology, our species may not have enough time to realize such a
revolution in thinking.
Nevertheless, we have only one
reasonable choice: to proceed as though we can ultimately learn to govern
ourselves in healthy ways. This means that, even if we offend those whose minds
are bound by primitive thinking, we must teach the elements of mastering
abstract thought in our homes, schools, broadcast media, and religious
institutions. Meanwhile, we can develop governmental mechanisms that
deliberately bypass clique mentality in favor of the cultivated wisdom of
individual humans (Watson, 1994b).
REFERENCES
Shupe, C. (1989). The
Natural Patterns of Human Bonding. Phoenix, AZ: Spiritual Freedom Press.
Watson, D. E.
(1993). Autistic Certainty. Telicom Vol. XI (7), pp. 43-46. April, 1993.
Watson, D. E.
(1994a). Surviving Your Crises, Reviving Your Dreams. New Bedford, MA: Mills & Sanderson.
Watson, D. E.
(1994b). The
Uniform Code of Political Justice. In this volume.
