Greetings Andy
ROG:
I read that Scientific American too. I agree with everything you wrote on
language.
Q. Do you agree that
mankind has improved in the ability to cooperate (even in socially amiable
competitive ways*) across larger spans?
ANDY
We have progressed towards greater and greater complexity in our societies
over the past 10K years(I choose this date to coincide with agriculture and
sedentary pop vs. nomadic hunters and gatherers). This can be thought of as an
improvement if this progression is deemed to be an advance from low to high
quality (trying to stay within the MOQ framework here-probably
unsuccesfully). I
don't agree that this is true. Society has evolved towards greater
complexity,
becuase that is what dynamic systems do when they possess the means. With the
emergence of langauge, H. Sap. possessed the unique ability to begin this
progression. The "innate" abilities to cooperate and compete have always been
there from the first H. Saps. The evolution of complexity on the social level
has used a heathy dose of both. For an entertaining read that gives a useful
account of the competitive aspect of this progression I would reccommend Jared
Diamponds "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
ROG:
Diamond's masterpiece is one of the books on social quality that has been
most influential to my views (you can see its influence in my previous *
footnote). I don't really think you are disagreeing with me here. I agree the
progression is social over this time frame (enabled by prior biological
improvements such as language). Below are Diamond's recommendation (from a
conversation in The Edge) on developing successful social organizations...
DIAMOND:
So what this suggests is that we can extract from human history a couple of
principles. First, the principle that really isolated groups are at a
disadvantage, because most groups get most of their ideas and innovations
from the outside. Second, I also derive the principle of intermediate
fragmentation: you don't want excessive unity and you don't want excessive
fragmentation; instead, you want your human society or business to be broken
up into a number of groups which compete with each other but which also
maintain relatively free communication with each other.
ANDY:
You said "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."
I agree. It is only that I think these innate qualities have not evolved over
the period that I think we both agree has characterized the increase in social
complexity. That is why I chose 30Kya if somewhat arbitrarily. We really
don't
witness these great leaps in social evolution until the emergence of
agriculture
around 10K ya. "Our tendencys toward cruelty, selfishness, dishonesty,
status,
etc" maintain a presence in todays society that is equal to any moment in
recent
history (30k ya). In fact, these traits along with the other set of
"desireable"
traits have played equal roles in the "evolution of complexity."
ROG:
Again I agree with almost everything you wrote. Where I would differ is that
the span of cooperation/competition has become larger and more effective (it
has gained in social quality). Our tendencies toward immorality are
controlled much more effectively in quality societies such as Taiwan,
Australiia, Great Britain etc. For example, the size of the group considered
socially protected has grown from village to nation to universal
(Enlightenment values) over the past three thousand years. We have developed
governments that are much more effective at resolving conflict and at
minimizing exploitation as revealed by the transition from divine ruler, to
monarchy to divided representational democracy. We have further empowered
half the human species with equal opportunity across gender. We have
eliminated slavery and are well on the way to rooting out systematic racial
discrimination.
I could go on. I agree that the progress is all social or above (there has
been no innate improvement in biological man), but I do see it as clear
progress. The span of cooperation/competition has increased in a way that
maintains and advances the system.
Rog
PS -- I could go on for pages about good competition as opposed to bad,
destructive competition. But I better not, suffice it to say I have found
insights in Pirsig's levels in regards to possible types of competition.
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