The nature of human nature

[Attila]

The question of "human nature" has been involved in debates regarding the necessity of authoritarian institutions such as religions and national governments. It is argued that humans are inherently selfish and/or immoral in nature and need some set of societal constraints to prevent  wholesale mayhem. In more religious terminology, we are sheep and have need of a shepherd to guide us along a moral path. Clerics and politicians alike preach the need for "leaders", figures of authority, to maintain the established order. Non-authoritarian models for society such as anarchism are rejected out-of-hand as "impractical" or "unrealistic" due to the allegedly selfish nature of human nature.

There's a fair amount of evidence about to suggest that this view of human nature is erroneous. An early example of such evidence is provided by biologist W.D. Hamilton who in 1964 attempted to explain how ostensibly selfish organisms could evolve to share their time and resources, even sacrificing themselves for the good of others.
Robert Axelrod in his book  (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation staged computer tournaments where competitors submitted evolutionary strategies in the form of computer programs. I'll spare you the details but winner was always Anatol Rapoport's tit for tat strategy or some variant thereof.  The details of the tit for tat strategy can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat.
Basically it means be nice for starters and continue being nice until someone screws you; then screw him back. But then forgive him if he starts playing nicely again. If you screw your opponent and he is nice to you, you get maximum profit and he gets nothing. If you both cooperate then you each get a nice reward but lower than the maximum. If you both try to screw each other each of you gets a very small reward.
Of course, if you suppress your opponents ability to retaliate then it is in your interest to give nothing and take everything. In sum, an equal playing field encourages cooperation whilst an unequal one encourages exploitation. Turning the other cheek helps the exploiter and discourages cooperation and the meek shall inherit very little if anything. The prize goes to those exercising fair-play.

The biological implementation of this strategy must involve "drives" similar to sex, hunger, sleep, etc. type drives. The expectation is borne out: "Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health and LABS-D'Or Hospital Network (J.M.) provided the first evidence for the neural bases of altruistic giving in normal healthy volunteers, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. I haven't come across confirmation of the existence of a "revenge" or "retaliation" drive but then I haven't looked very hard. I would expect it exists and if not then there's something quite wrong with this model.

So humans can be expected to behave decently in an egalitarian society. In societies that exhibit social hierarchies such as our own, we can and often do behave badly. As a rationalist, I admit that everything written above could be total rubbish. I'm perfectly willing to admit I am wrong and if I'm wrong I'd certainly benefit from knowing about it and knowing why or how. Therefore all views pro or con would be most welcome.
ciao,
Attila  

[Ildiko]

Of course, if you suppress your opponents ability to retaliate then it is in your interest to give nothing and take everything. In sum, an equal playing field encourages cooperation whilst an unequal one encourages exploitation. Turning the other cheek helps the exploiter and discourages cooperation and the meek shall inherit very little if anything. The prize goes to those exercising fair-play.

Well, the second prize. First prize goes to the exploiter who succeeds in making the playing field uneven in his own favour.    I take your point, though.

I haven't come across confirmation of the existence of a "revenge" or "retaliation" drive but then I haven't looked very hard. I would expect it exists and if not then there's something quite wrong with this model.

That does seem likely - I don't personally know anyone who doesn't have one, however saintly they claim to be. What controls it is possibly not our innate good-nature but rather the awareness that it is likely to backfire: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." The immediate act of retaliation is probably to withdraw from further interaction, rather than to actively retaliate.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Turning the other cheek helps the exploiter and discourages cooperation and the meek shall inherit very little if anything. The prize goes to those exercising fair-play.

Except in the case of Gandhi, where the meek inherited India.  Or in the case of the early Christians, where the meek inherited the Roman Empire.  Of course, after receiving the inheritance, they both stopped turning the other cheek and turned into oppressors.  Turning the other cheek can keep the lowly under the radar of the oppressor - they do not seem to be a threat as long as they meekly submit, and then they can continue to exist and wait until a better opportunity arises.  Jesus was speaking to the oppressed, and the strategy of meekness seemed to work (which is one reason Gandhi adopted it). It was much better than open confrontation against a massively stronger force like the British and Roman Empires. 

That being said, if you do have a level playing field, everything you said seems appropriate.  Most of us rightfully assess our abilities to be in the average range, so it behooves each of us to act cooperatively with others more or less equal with us.  However, if an Ubermensch arises, he can kick over everyone's cans and do as he pleases, which is to his benefit.  So we must cooperate to prevent him from arising and ruining it for all of us.

[Ildiko]

Except in the case of Gandhi, where the meek inherited India.

Just to clarify, are you calling Gandhi meek? Non-violent does not = meek.

Or in the case of the early Christians, where the meek inherited the Roman Empire.

Constantine? This would be Constantine the Great who had his son and his wife put to death because his mother said so? Well, I suppose doing what your mother tells you to do is pretty meek.

Seriously, is this some Christian usage of the term meek?

<Sorry, this is off-topic but I just had to respond.>

[xSilverPhinx]

Of course, if you suppress your opponents ability to retaliate then it is in your interest to give nothing and take everything. In sum, an equal playing field encourages cooperation whilst an unequal one encourages exploitation. Turning the other cheek helps the exploiter and discourages cooperation and the meek shall inherit very little if anything. The prize goes to those exercising fair-play.

Well, the second prize. First prize goes to the exploiter who succeeds in making the playing field uneven in his own favour.    I take your point, though.

Tit for tat, if done properly, avoids allowing anyone with a different strategy taking over the group. At least in Axelrod's model, people cease reciprocation with the individual that does. Problem is, people are complex, with complex interests.

Also, could anyone more mathematically able (I suck at maths) clarify if the tit for tat strategy works with an infinite number of people? Or is there a tipping point when it become chaotic?

Edited to rephrase: In a realistic scenario, is there a minimum or maximum number of people necessary for the group to be stable, taking complex interests into account?

I haven't come across confirmation of the existence of a "revenge" or "retaliation" drive but then I haven't looked very hard. I would expect it exists and if not then there's something quite wrong with this model.

I found something on Altruistic Revenge which is interesting because sometimes it's focused more on group fitness or survival than on the vengeful individual, who sometimes is adversely affected.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Except in the case of Gandhi, where the meek inherited India.

Just to clarify, are you calling Gandhi meek? Non-violent does not = meek.

Or in the case of the early Christians, where the meek inherited the Roman Empire.

Constantine? This would be Constantine the Great who had his son and his wife put to death because his mother said so? Well, I suppose doing what your mother tells you to do is pretty meek.

Seriously, is this some Christian usage of the term meek?

<Sorry, this is off-topic but I just had to respond.>

You are missing the point.  Gandhi turned the other cheek. His followers, the meek of India (have you ever been to India?) essentially defeated the British Empire, not generally by violence, but by following Gandhi's and Jesus' examples of turning the other cheek. The meek inherited India, by following someone who turned the other cheek.

The meek of the 4th Century were not the armies of Constantine or Constantine himself, but the Christians who had endured unspeakable horrors at the hands of the Romans for 300 years. They generally practiced non-violence, and eventually found themselves part of the majority religion.  Had they continually taken up arms against Rome, they would have been annihilated. As it was, they patiently endured, and found themselves on top eventually.  How they acted after that is another matter.   

[xSilverPhinx]

You are missing the point.  Gandhi turned the other cheek. His followers, the meek of India (have you ever been to India?) essentially defeated the British Empire, not generally by violence, but by following Gandhi's and Jesus' examples of turning the other cheek. The meek inherited India, by following someone who turned the other cheek.

I have, and the people there of the lower castes are meek, which is why the caste system still exists.

Gandhi saw the benefit of not escalating violence, because it can quickly go out of control. Pity he was killed by a religious fundamentalist though.

[Attila]

I said:

and the meek shall inherit very little if anything.

Bruce said:

Except in the case of Gandhi, where the meek inherited India.

and then he said:

You are missing the point.  Gandhi turned the other cheek.

First let's look a the meaning of meek
This from Merrium-Webster

1 : enduring injury with patience and without resentment : mild
2 : deficient in spirit and courage : submissive
3 : not violent or strong : moderate

I think we can agree (am I too optimistic here?) that Gandhi wasn't "meek" in sense #2 What about sense #3?
Bruce, does beating your wife count as being non-violent or strong? Consider the following:

Gandhi was a good man he is the man who was extremely angry. He had a lot of anger but the anger was channeled towards something that helped society. It is a well known fact that he beat his wife but that does not make him a bad person.

I found this in answers.com but was somewhat sceptical as to its accuracy. I didn't know Gandhi beat his wife, did you? In my value-system (not god's) beating your wife or anyone else who doesn't threaten your continued physical existence, for that matter is a violent and strong reaction. In any event I searched further looking for confirmation and ... bingo!!!! I found this:

He [Gandhi] admitted in his autobiography to beating his young wife, and indulging in carnal pleasures out of lust, jealousy and possessiveness...

Just to show that this violence was not a one-off example of exuberant youth, consider this, Bruce:

In April 1918, during the latter part of World War I, the Viceroy invited Gandhi to a War Conference in Delhi[29] Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India's independence,[30] Gandhi agreed to actively recruit Indians for the war effort.[31] In contrast to the Zulu War of 1906 and the outbreak of World War I in 1914, when he recruited volunteers for the Ambulance Corps, this time Gandhi attempted to recruit combatants.

Easily verifiable if you have doubts about it, Bruce. To me, recruiting people to fight in a war is not very non-violent but then I don't have the benefit of a religious background.
I think we can say with confidence that Gandhi was not meek in sense #3. Finally, let's turn to sense #1.
Here's how Gandhi endured imprisonment:

Some of Gandhi's South African articles are controversial. On 7 March 1908, Gandhi wrote in the Indian Opinion of his time in a South African prison: "Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals... The kaffirs' sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness. They're loafers... a species of humanity almost unknown among the Indians."[19] Writing on the subject of immigration in 1903, Gandhi commented: "We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do... We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race."

Note that "kaffir" is quite a strong term being roughly equivalent to "nigger" in American English.
To my tiny mind that strongly smacks of impatience and resentment. We can then state that Gandhi was not meek in sense #1. So we conclude: Gandhi was not meek. QED
Sorry to be so pedantic, Bruce, but you forced my hand. As a final point, in my reading of things "turning the other cheek" means non-resistance and does not mean "non-violent resistance. Workers who go out on strike in reaction to some gross misconduct by the boss are not turning the other cheek. But then I don't have the benefit of a personal relationship with god, so what do I know about such things.  
I await with great impatience you response.
ciao,
Attila

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I await with great impatience you response.

I'll grant you that Gandhi could have been an asshole, personally.  But he was non-violent in his response to his enemy (British Empire), and as a result, the meek (average Indians) inherited India. Up to 1948, the British had India for about 200 years.  Now, the Indians, all 1,000,000,000 of them, have it - the world's largest democracy.

MLK was also, at times, an asshole in his personal life - cheated on his wife. But today he was honored with his own monument on the Mall in D.C.  He was non-violent against his enemy (U.S. racism), and as a result, the meek (African Americans) inherited the USA (now one of them is President, and others are Senators, Representative, S.C. Justices, billionaire businessmen, star athletes, etc.)  None of this existed before MLK acted with non-violence (i.e.; turned the other cheek).

There were probably many early Christian leaders who were assholes in person (as there are today).  But they acted with non-violence against their Roman oppressors, and then the meek (run of the mill believers) became part of the dominant religion.  They inherited the Roman Empire.  After that, they may have been real assholes, but for about 300 years they were generally meek.

That's my argument.  Sometimes turning the other cheek is a good strategy, and as a result, meek inherit the earth.

[Sandra Craft]

The question of "human nature" has been involved in debates regarding the necessity of authoritarian institutions such as religions and national governments. It is argued that humans are inherently selfish and/or immoral in nature and need some set of societal constraints to prevent  wholesale mayhem. In more religious terminology, we are sheep and have need of a shepherd to guide us along a moral path. Clerics and politicians alike preach the need for "leaders", figures of authority, to maintain the established order. Non-authoritarian models for society such as anarchism are rejected out-of-hand as "impractical" or "unrealistic" due to the allegedly selfish nature of human nature.

There's a fair amount of evidence about to suggest that this view of human nature is erroneous.

Have you ever read a book called Our Inner Ape, by Frans De Waal? He used a comparison between human society and the societies of two of our closest relatives, the chimpanzees and the bonobos, to look at this question and come to similar conclusions.

[Crow]

I'll grant you that Gandhi... [and all that followed bellow]

I still think you have got the wrong end of the stick with the word meek. Sorry for being fussy but it doesn't really make sense due to the use of the word meek. Meek is being submissive, yielding, obedient, compliant, tame, biddable, tractable, acquiescent, humble, deferential, timid, unprotesting, unresisting, quiet, mild, gentle, docile, lamblike, shy, diffident, unassuming, self-effacing. With the two examples you gave of why the meek will inherit the earth the historical records are far from meek. The Indian people may not have been violent but they certainly weren't meek otherwise they wouldn't have done anything and wouldn't have stood up for their independence. Same goes for Christians.

[Tank]

I await with great impatience you response.

I'll grant you that Gandhi could have been an asshole, personally.  But he was non-violent in his response to his enemy (British Empire), and as a result, the meek (average Indians) inherited India. Up to 1948, the British had India for about 200 years.  Now, the Indians, all 1,000,000,000 of them, have it - the world's largest democracy.

MLK was also, at times, an asshole in his personal life - cheated on his wife. But today he was honored with his own monument on the Mall in D.C.  He was non-violent against his enemy (U.S. racism), and as a result, the meek (African Americans) inherited the USA (now one of them is President, and others are Senators, Representative, S.C. Justices, billionaire businessmen, star athletes, etc.)  None of this existed before MLK acted with non-violence (i.e.; turned the other cheek).

There were probably many early Christian leaders who were assholes in person (as there are today).  But they acted with non-violence against their Roman oppressors, and then the meek (run of the mill believers) became part of the dominant religion.  They inherited the Roman Empire.  After that, they may have been real assholes, but for about 300 years they were generally meek.

That's my argument.  Sometimes turning the other cheek is a good strategy, and as a result, meek inherit the earth.

Are you aware of the deal Britain made with India during WWII to keep them fighting with the Allies?

[Attila]

Hi Bruce,
Ok, we've established that Gandhi was by no means meek. That's progress.  Now you claim that it was by virtue of Gandhi's acts (although he certainly didn't act alone) that the meek inherited India (and Pakistan? and Bangladesh?). This is a bold claim and certainly seems to be contradicted by all the available evidence. I would be truly grateful if you could provide us with the sources (links to them would be useful too) for this claim. Do you mean to say that the Dalit's have inherited India?

More than 160 million people in India are considered "Untouchable"—people tainted by their birth into a caste system that deems them impure, less than human.

Human rights abuses against these people, known as Dalits, are legion. A random sampling of headlines in mainstream Indian newspapers tells their story: "Dalit boy beaten to death for plucking flowers"; "Dalit tortured by cops for three days"; "Dalit 'witch' paraded naked in Bihar"; "Dalit killed in lock-up at Kurnool"; "7 Dalits burnt alive in caste clash"; "5 Dalits lynched in Haryana"; "Dalit woman gang-raped, paraded naked"; "Police egged on mob to lynch Dalits".

Being a nice guy I supply you with a link and there are many more where that came from.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html
"And the meek shall inherit the earth" along with "turn the other cheek" are what someone with money and power would say to keep the rabble in line.
I await your reply with extreme interest.
Ciao,
Attila

[xSilverPhinx]

I await your reply with extreme interest.

Me too, Bruce.

[Too Few Lions]

The meek of the 4th Century were not the armies of Constantine or Constantine himself, but the Christians who had endured unspeakable horrors at the hands of the Romans for 300 years. They generally practiced non-violence, and eventually found themselves part of the majority religion.  Had they continually taken up arms against Rome, they would have been annihilated. As it was, they patiently endured, and found themselves on top eventually.  How they acted after that is another matter.    

Bruce, you really should read some proper history on the period, rather than relying on incorrect Christian propaganda. The Roman Empire was pretty tolerant when it came to religion. Hence they had hundreds of gods and dozens of religions peacefully coexisting. The Christian emperors on the other hand were incredibly intolerant, and outlawed every other religion under penalty of death. Hence over a few hundred years the Empire became Christian. Religious intolerance is inherently and historically linked to monotheism (my god right, your god wrong). Polytheists generally don't suffer with this affliction (my god right, your god right too!)

The truth is that the Roman Empire only ever officially persecuted Christians in a systemic way for five years; in 250 CE under Decius, between 257-9 under Valerian and between 303–5 under Diocletian. There were admittedly a few other short term and localised persecutions during Christianity's first 300 years, but nothing long-term or Empire wide. So it really wasn't 300 years of unspeakable horrors for the early Christians! It's also worth pointing out that far more Christians were murdered by fellow Christians in the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century than were killed at the hands of pagans during all the persecutions of the previous three centuries!

The early Christians were generally not the meek peace loving hippies you're trying to portray them as. The evidence suggests many were religious zealots and fundamentalists with a fervour for martyrdom, who believed everyone around them worshipped 'false' gods and 'devils'. That's how the earliest independent accounts of Christians describe them. They also believed that Jesus was going to immanently return and destroy the Earth in a great fire, killing all those dirty 'heathen' folk in the process and taking Christians up to heaven (only the correct type of Christians mind, all the others would burn with the pagans!). From their fervour for martyrdom, their intolerance towards every other religion, and their hatred of classical civilization, I would say many early Christians were closer to Al Quaeda than to Ghandi!

Given that the Roman Empire was pretty tolerant in the area of religion, I think you have to ask why Christians were singled out for persecution, albeit only sporadically and for a handful of years. I think the answer is that the Romans were sometimes dealing with religious fanatics who hated classical civilization, and went round doing things like smashing up temples, libraries and statues of the gods. They dealt with the Christians in the same way we might deal with Islamic extremists, who oppose western civilization and all its values. If the Christians had just been good citizens and worshipped their god and saviour peacefully alongside all the other gods and saviours of the Empire, they never would have been persecuted.

Here's a few examples of the crazy mindset a lot of early Christians had...

Tertullian (160 – 225 CE)

'You are fond of spectacles, expect the greatest of all spectacles, the last and eternal judgement of the universe. How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs, and fancied gods, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in red hot flames with their deluded scholars; so many celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal, not of Minos, but of Christ.'

Firmicus Maternus (early fourth century)

'It is enjoined on you by the law of the supreme God, that you severely prosecute in every way the crime of idolatry. Hear and entrust to your holy consciousness what God commands concerning this crime. God orders that neither son nor brother be spared, and directs the sword as an avenger through the beloved limbs of a wife. A friend he also persecutes with lofty severity, and all the people are roused to arms to rend the bodies of sacrilegious people. Destruction is determined even for whole cities, if they are apprehended in this crime'

Ambrose of Milan (337-397)

'Salvation is not sure unless everyone worships in truth the same true God, who is to be worshipped from the bottom of the heart; for the "gods of the heathen", as Scripture says, "are devils".'


Now compare those Christian comments with this from Celsus (second century), a pagan who disliked Christianity, and I think you can see the clear difference between pagan and Christian mindset

'Yet these goatherds and shepherds came to believe in one god and called him the Most High...and came to discredit all other gods. Yet in excluding the other names of the highest god, have not they shown their foolishness! It matters not a bit what one calls the supreme God – or whether one uses Greek names or Indian names or the names formerly used by the Egyptians'

And this from another pagan, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (340 – 402 CE)

'And so we ask for peace for the gods of our fathers, for the gods of our native land. It is reasonable that whatever each of us worships is really to be considered one and the same. We gaze upon the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe compasses us. What does it matter what practical system we adopt in our search for the truth? Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendous a secret.'