To Andy
>From Rog
Thanks Andy for the wisdom on Bonobos!
ROG wrote:
Social patterns and modern man have progressed together to higher and higher
levels of cooperation. Humans have developed or evolved an innate moral
sense.
Andy:
We have definitely progressed toward higher levels of social complexity.
but this has involved a combination of competition and cooperation. I am
afraid that brute savagery has maintained a presence throughout this
progression.
To say that we have developed or evolved an innate moral sense is nonsense.
ROG:
But I agree with everything you write above on competition and the presence
of savagery.
I think I need to explain the innate moral sense "nonsense." I am referring
to innate human tendencies toward sympathy, duty, a sense of embarrassment,
loyalty, honesty, fairness, etc. These are of course often at odds with our
tendencies toward cruelty, selfishness, dishonesty, status, etc. Both sets
are well-documented tendencies across the majority of cultures. The point
is that humans are complex social beings, and have evolved (granted
imperfect) capabilities to exist and thrive as such social beings.
ROG wrote:
we are complex beings, not all good and not all bad, but in general the
co-evolution of man and society has been from brute savagery toward harmony
(with lots of
stumbles on the way).
Andy:
I think this characterization of human nature as progression from brute
savagery to harmony is wrong and can just as easily be turned around using
all the available evidence. The use of the term "co-evolution" for man and
society is not accurate in my view. Humans co-evolve with other species in
our
environment. Social and cultural evolution exists on a whole new level.
Although man could co-evolve with society in the very long term, we have not
had the chance to evolve at a rate equal to what society has evolved since we
emerged from the African savanah roughly 30K yo. Thus, genetically we don't
differ
much from these original homo sapiens.
ROG:
We branched away from other primate lineages millions of years ago, not
30,000 years ago, and were complex social beings considerably prior to this
date you mention (I am not sure why you list this date?). Our language
capabilities are one such evolved tendency. I would agree with you that
evolution would likely have been nominal in the past 30,000 years, and that
man has evolved genetically hardly at all, if at all, over recorded history.
Any recent progress has been overwhelmingly SOCIAL. I guess my co-evolution
term can portray false equity between time frames, and if so I apologize.
The point is that our social abilities arose out of our biological abilities
and as our environment became more social, we were selected more for social
abilities...they co-evolved over hundreds of thousands of years or more.
Andy:
Whether we are brute savages or harmonious
social beings by nature can be supported by either the chimp example or
bonobo.
ROG:
I fully agree that we are not "harmonious social beings by nature." Nor, for
the record, are we "brute savages" by nature. I will say we have innate
social skills (offset by non-social tendencies), and I will say the progress
of society and nature together led to greater harmony across span and depth
(with recent advances overwhelmingly social).
Let me pause here to get your response, as I fear most of your disagreements
were due to my sloppy writing rather than with my actual position.
Do you agree that man has innate moral tendencies?
Do you agree that our moral tendencies have improved
in sophistication over the past few million years?
Do you agree that
mankind has improved in the ability to cooperate (even in socially amiable
competitive ways*) across larger spans?
Do you agree that humans are more
socially advanced than other primates?
Once we understand each other's positions on these issues, we can progress
better... possibly even arriving at some degree of harmony ourselves!
Rog
* By "socially amiable competitive ways," I am refering to the ability of
nondestructive competition to make one stronger. Scientists compete with
theories to identify the best. Athletes compete for trophies but become
better quality athletes due to the process, etc
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:46 BST