many outweighs few?

[Tigranes]

There are numerous 'natural' responses that we humans in our society and our period possess, such as instinctive repulsion against murder and cannibalism, but also smaller things like our standards of aesthetic beauty (which has changed); 'natural' responses which have since proven to be not so 'natural' or at least mutable, such as repulsion against homosexuality as a primary orientation: still others which are 'natural' to some but not so 'natural' to others. By what standard can you divvy these up and say, some are social factors and others are timeless, intrinsic human qualities?

 

We can postulate that something like revulsion against murder is 'instinsic' and it will sound correct, but I suggest that is only because it is such a deep-seated belief that it seems more 'natural' than, say, thinking anorexic women are 'hawt'. But this may simply mean a more lengthy sequence of embedment, a more deeply installed social norm, and not a completely 'natural biological' response. How can we tell? Which is it? Probably impossible to empirically prove until we can produce completely controlled environments where humans grow up with absolutely zero social influence (the moment they see a research professor, that is social influence), but we can make some guesses.

 

Let's begin with your idea about the stigma against murder. You say we have to condition soldiers to shoot to kill, the result of which is psychological problems. Of course! If we for a second assume the repulsion against killing other humans is not a biological natural response, this example does not fail. On the contrary, these soldiers have been raised to be normal citizens in our society. In other words, by the time they enlist at the age of sixteen, seventeen or older, they have already been fully conditioned by social norms to deplore and be disgusted by killing of humans. In other words, they have been conditioned over twenty years, extremely well, extremely carefully, twenty four hours a day, that murder is deplorable. Now, you then send them off to the army for a couple years' training: how is that kind of social conditioning going to overcome the previous kind of social conditioning? You are not thinking of the social conditioning AGAINST murder that has already occured.

 

Another way to expose this social conditioning against murder is to consider the acceptable forms of murder our society accommodates. For example, a young man volunteering for service in 1914 knows that it will likely result in murder. This, understandably, bothers him. But it bothers him nowhere as much as killing 'innocents'. If there was a biological, 'natural' response of disgust towards murder, then such a response would be predicated upon the very action of killing a homo sapiens, with no distinction as to his legal innocence or the political situation. But that is not how it works for us. While we are still shocked, and while soldiers still can have severe psychological problems, we find murder in war we deem as righteous, execution of criminals or whatnot much more acceptable, much easier to do; our 'natural' response to murder is much easier to repress in these situations. There is a clear gap between the response within a person who executes criminals as a job and a serial murderer. There is definitely reason to suggest that instead of being hard-wired in our biological bodies with a natural 'dead human=OH MY ****ING GOD', our reactions against murder, stratified and categorised as it is, is heavily dependent upon the social norms and our education/environment.

 

That is not to suggest that devoid of all society, the primordial man would look at a corpse and not blink an eye. There is a possibility he would still recoil in this biologically instinctive terror. Yes. But what I am saying is that this biological, natural response is not something so dominant, as you imply, that social conditioning struggles to overcome it; even in extreme, deep-seated responses such as to murder, social norms are much more powerful and they can overturn, encourage, or distort these responses in amazing ways.

[Humodour]

Human beings are not so rational.

 

By design.

 

It seems humanity proliferates better by compartmentalisation than globalisation and homogeneity (in fact this is true of many species). E.g. the needs of the individual come first, but the needs of the group are often important and worthy of altruistic behaviour, however the same is not true of the needs of the species (that is: we're only altruistic to those we've got some sort of bond or relationship with). The stronger the bond, the more altruistic (e.g. compare how you act to your friends in your social circle, with your family, and then how you act with your friends compared with your city/town in general)

 

I imagine it's optimisation that has occurred since the dawn of familial society in primates (protection the self, but also the family). The practical impacts of it should be apparent; protection of the individual and group from abuse by others, whilst simultaneously producing advances beyond what any one individual could accomplish alone.

 

In fact I read a study that suggests the human mind is fundamentally designed for interaction and relationships with a small, finite number of individuals (below 50, IIRC).

[Tigranes]

In fact I read a study that suggests the human mind is fundamentally designed for interaction and relationships with a small, finite number of individuals (below 50, IIRC).

 

Dunbar's Number, and it is approx.150. Nevertheless.

 

I think there is a general impression in our society that globalisation means locality is being replaced by the global and we will soon have to think and do everything in global terms. I don't think that's true, for reasons Krezack pointed out; that is ultimately unsustainable because humans (as we know them) simply can't care enough or understand enough about such large scale operations. What globalisation will do is, in time, retain the compartmentalised nature of our societies and activities but control the type of localities that spring within those 'compartments'.

 

In other words we're not replacing 60 countries with 1 megacountry; the 60 countries will still exist (and may evenb reak down further), but there will be a sort of 'global committee' over the top of these countries that control the doors that open, the passages that link them, the ideas that float in the air infectiously across these countries. The 'committee', of course, is actually nonsubjective, so this is not a conspiracy theory.

[Azarkon]

But what I am saying is that this biological, natural response is not something so dominant, as you imply, that social conditioning struggles to overcome it; even in extreme, deep-seated responses such as to murder, social norms are much more powerful and they can overturn, encourage, or distort these responses in amazing ways.

 

I think we both agree that in the lack of social conditioning, there remains a basic set of comforts and discomforts that are wired directly into our biology. The question is how deep this wiring goes. I make no claim to possessing the real answer to the "nature vs. nurture" question, but I do want to point out that the tendency for people to act in their own self-interests (or, at least, in the self-interests of "those like them") is nigh universal and thus justifies a view of morality-as-personal-comfort-zone. There may, in fact, be some people in the world who would elect to act against their own self-interests on the basis of some moral code (or, perhaps, it is more accurate to say that they view following those principles as the highest fulfillment of their self-interests), but they are few and far in-between. By and large, people will choose according to basic wants and fears, which in this case corresponds to their own survival. What arguments they conjure to justify themselves is mere psychological trickery - because fundamentally, one cannot choose rationally between the deaths of billions of innocent people. The consequences cannot be predicted, and all conventional notions of morality falter. As Gandalf would say, "even the wise cannot know all ends."

 

In the end, I am rather disappointed that no one has pointed out what I think is true: that with regards to this question, rational morality fails. In the absence of rationality, there is only one "moral" way to decide between two fundamentally "immoral" decisions: flip a coin, and let nature decide. The alternative is too dreadful to consider.

[Humodour]

In fact I read a study that suggests the human mind is fundamentally designed for interaction and relationships with a small, finite number of individuals (below 50, IIRC).

 

Dunbar's Number, and it is approx.150. Nevertheless.

 

I think there is a general impression in our society that globalisation means locality is being replaced by the global and we will soon have to think and do everything in global terms. I don't think that's true, for reasons Krezack pointed out; that is ultimately unsustainable because humans (as we know them) simply can't care enough or understand enough about such large scale operations. What globalisation will do is, in time, retain the compartmentalised nature of our societies and activities but control the type of localities that spring within those 'compartments'.

 

In other words we're not replacing 60 countries with 1 megacountry; the 60 countries will still exist (and may evenb reak down further), but there will be a sort of 'global committee' over the top of these countries that control the doors that open, the passages that link them, the ideas that float in the air infectiously across these countries. The 'committee', of course, is actually nonsubjective, so this is not a conspiracy theory.

 

Agreed. It is my hope (and belief) that this interdependence of 'compartments', and uncontrollable proliferation of ideas between them, will gradually move humanity away from war.

 

Of course, this does hinge on the belief that protection of human rights is the inevitable path any sufficiently advanced society will follow. Which pretty much rules out any fascist, communist, totalitarian, etc society. Basically, I think democracy is inevitable for any society, and that democracies are far less prone to acts of war or hostility by their very nature; you have to influence the consensual opinion and morality of an entire society, not just an elite few.

[Azarkon]

you have to influence the consensual opinion and morality of an entire society, not just an elite few.

 

But that is easy. Remember, some of the worst dictators of the world were either voted into power, or might as well have been. Historically, people are known to willingly give away their freedoms and their rights in order to attain security and prosperity.

 

Democracy is insufficient. A free press and a strong anti-war tradition is more important.

[Humodour]

you have to influence the consensual opinion and morality of an entire society, not just an elite few.

 

But that is easy. Remember, some of the worst dictators of the world were either voted into power, or might as well have been. Historically, people are known to willingly give away their freedoms and their rights in order to attain security and prosperity.

That argument hardly holds water. No style of government stands up to a belief held by an entire people. The idea is that democracy is more suited for normalisation of extremes than any other system; not the prevention of extremes completely.

 

Democracy is insufficient. A free press and a strong anti-war tradition is more important.

 

This is true. However, I would argue that such things are products of cultures which already enjoy strong protection of their human rights; something a democracy is inherently geared towards.

[Azarkon]

That argument hardly holds water. No style of government stands up to a belief held by an entire people. The idea is that democracy is more suited for normalisation of extremes than any other system; not the prevention of extremes completely.

 

But in what way is democracy more suited for the normalization of extremes, and how does that deter war? The last time I checked, Bush pushed through the War in Iraq without universal consent, and maintained it for more than four years despite a majority opposition. Russia fought both Chechen Wars as a democracy. By contrast, China, an authoritarian regime by every notion of the word, hasn't gone to war in the last thirty years. The argument that proclivity for war is tied to government structure therefore seems flimsy, at best.

 

I would be more convinced if you can show that the protection of human rights within a country have anything to do with its foreign policy. In my view, it is more likely that a nation with a strong sense of ideological human rights would engage in interventionary wars than would a more practical authoritarian regime trying to keep its population under control. There is no reason to believe that democracies would shun war - though there reason to believe that democracies are less likely to engage in total war (because of the difficulty of instituting a draft when your legitimacy depends on those you're drafting).

 

In my view, while there is some correlation between democracy and belligerence, they are not the most important factors and therefore not safeguards. A country's economic system, resource security, position within the ideological-practical spectrum, and regional balance are far better places to start than the government. Fundamentally, countries go to war largely to protect their self-interests, and this is as true of democracies as it is of dictatorships. The system of interdependent compartments is designed to tie every country's self-interests with every other country's. That's the reason it's likely to work - at least while the interdependence holds.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Azarkon

[Tigranes]

Quickly, here:

 

If contemporary democracy is suited for the normalisation of extremes, it is also highly susceptible to the manipulation of what is normal both by a) a small group of determined individuals, thereby bringing the concept of democracy into irony, and; b) the nonsubjective social forces, exposing the fundamental weakness of a collective decision-making body.

[LadyCrimson]

The poll needs a "depends" option.

I subscribe to the notion that both "many outweighs the few' and "few outweighs the many" can be equally viable/applicable.

 

For a country/people to completely forgo its desired "way of life" and surrender or willingly be annihilated without fighting for whatever those ideals are, simply on the basis of who might have the biggest death toll, is too close to pacifism for my liking, which I don't believe in.

[kirottu]

In fact I read a study that suggests the human mind is fundamentally designed for interaction and relationships with a small, finite number of individuals (below 50, IIRC).

 

Dunbar's Number, and it is approx.150. Nevertheless.

 

I saw a documentary about this. Scientist had found gene that governs this and noticed it

Edited March 6, 2008 by kirottu

[Tigranes]

Interesting. Though, I must say, one would be hard pressed to find people whose close acquaintances number more than 150.

[Gorth]

Interesting. Though, I must say, one would be hard pressed to find people whose close acquaintances number more than 150.

That's a staggering number of people

 

*starts counting fingers*

 

I interact with 15 people on a regular basis if I stretch it a bit :sad:

 

 

(Aieee! the forum is mutating while I am previewing this)

[Tigranes]

Precisely. Now, if we take the broadest possible instance: a very social person who makes friends fast and enjoys their company, works (work friends), studies (classmates), goes to a local church (church friends), plays sports in the weekend (sport friends), keeps up correspondence with mates who are now far away, knows some internet people quite well, and has some other miscellaneous acquaintances.

 

On first glance that is easily over 150... until you realise that for most of us, there are people in our class, church group, office, sports team or whatever that you hardly know, or don't really know them that well and don't think about them most of the time. Every single category of people I just talked about above applies to me; even discounting the fact that I am a young person (and therefore has less acquaintances) and am not hypersociable, I would take all those people and set a rough number at less than a hundred. Certainly, people who if I met on the street I could ask to go for a coffee and would accept, and have a good time? More like fifty or perhaps a bit less. Even though that includes people in the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, US, Brazil, Korea, New Zealand, Australia.

[thepixiesrock]

I reccomend this if you haven't read it yet.

 

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

[Dark_Raven]

Survival of the fittest.

[Xard]

Which, btw, is false theory and deemed as inaccurate in modern synthetic evolution theory.

[Walsingham]

Which, btw, is false theory and deemed as inaccurate in modern synthetic evolution theory.

 

I agree.

[Humodour]

Which, btw, is false theory and deemed as inaccurate in modern synthetic evolution theory.

 

It's not false. But it isn't the driving force behind evolution. Hmm can type.

 

In many cases it doesn't apply (e.g. small populations) and in the case it does apply it should usually be reworded as "survival of those who aren't particularly unfit".

 

But claiming that it's entirely false? Well, you've a lot of explaining to do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift...ersus_selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theor...cular_evolution

[alanschu]

Not if the many are very small and thin, and the few are very large and fat.

 

 

As I study some linear algebra, I say thanks for this! Hehe.

[Walsingham]

Not if the many are very small and thin, and the few are very large and fat.

 

 

As I study some linear algebra, I say thanks for this! Hehe.

 

Finally someone gets the lovely joke.

 

EDIT: "grab a large iron skillet"

 

I'm not sure if he's being racist or gluttonous.

[Tale]

Not if the many are very small and thin, and the few are very large and fat.

 

 

As I study some linear algebra, I say thanks for this! Hehe.

 

Finally someone gets the lovely joke.

 

EDIT: "grab a large iron skillet"

 

I'm not sure if he's being racist or gluttonous.

I got the joke. It was the first thing I saw when I read the thread title. But thought it too obvious.

 

burn

[alanschu]

Sounds like something someone would say after not getting the joke.

[Gorth]

Thread pruned a little, let us try and keep ethnicity out of it where not necessary.