The nature of human nature

[Attila]

Nope, it's not a faith-based issue for me, at least I don't think any more than it is for you or anyone else. From my personal experience in life, I just don't think it would work on a large scale. I think there are too many selfish, antisocial and predatory people out there, as well as others who crave power, and others who actually want and like a rigid hierachy of authority. I lack your faith in human nature!

Me neither. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong, if wrong I am. Your experiences and mine are quite different. I would conclude that they are simply unreliable indicators of human nature provided that you could assure me that you have spent a significant amount of time living in non-hierarchical societies. If you have then we'll drop  the experience gambit altogether. If you haven't then that gap explains the difference in our takes on the subject. I have not provided any faith-based analysis. I have presented arguments from game theory and neurobiology. If you have presented evidence to the contrary I've missed it.

I would wonder if maybe there's something inherently / genetically in human nature for people who organise themselves into hierarchical societies when tribes / nations reach a certain size, given that's what's generally happened historically. I'm not sure I buy that this system has been forced on us.

Remember that the population of some small countries, Slovenia for one, are smaller than many large cities Tokyo, London, New York, Barcelona, Beijing, Milan, etc. Miraculously Slovenia has survived and even defeated a much larger military power (Serbia) in a 6 day war. I'm not claiming that the above mentioned entities are non-hierarchical but rather that smaller sized units can survive successfully in this world. Scale may be a factor but I repeat for the umpteenth time that there is no logical necessity for the existence of countries with huge populations. You can witness this today in the UK with constant pressure from at least a minority to split up the place into smaller units. Even within England, there is not a lot of love lost between north and south.  

I think maybe you're in danger of falling into the same trap a lot of idealogues fall into, assuming that everyone else wants what you want. I would imagine if you polled the population of most countries, not many of them would want to live in an anarchic society. Just because it seems like a good idea to you, doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. And I don't believe in forcing ideologies on people, history shows what a bad idea that is.

Once again you present absolutely no evidence for your claims. You may well be right but then again you may well be wrong. If we're agreed in using an evidence-based approach to life then we need to find evidence for this issue. Classifying me as an ideologue seems to be tantamount to claiming that I am arguing for a given position. If you have another meaning for this term do me the service of informing me of it. I am not as stupid as you seem to think I am. I am under no illusions about the popularity of the views I'm expressing. But the position of atheists in general are rarely more than a small minority in many countries, which makes them no less valid  You'll have to trust me that I am in absolutely no danger of that degree of self-delusion. The idea of an anarchist imposing anything on anyone is quite amusing. I'm not sure if you're serious or taking the piss. How many times do I have to say "I could be wrong about anything I state"  before you take  any notice. Let's just say you're preaching to the choir on that point.

As for the idea of nations, I prefer the idea of scaling up or doing without them . I think Europe's a good idea, and there haven't been any wars within the EU since it was founded. Which is a good thing given the previous 1000 years of European history! It seems to me the more small nations you have, the more chance there is of conflict between them.

But I'm definitely up for a less authoritarian and anarchic form of society. I can't say I like the current system, but on the plus side both me and you have the freedom to openly say and believe pretty much whatever we like. In the whole of human history, there aren't that many times and places where people could say the same thing.

Ok, points of agreement between us. I may be imagining things in which case I apologise but I seem to remember that recently the current government recommended that people report their anarchist neighbours to the police. Does this ring any bells? Of course we don't need to look to far to find other examples. I was brought up in a "western country" with the secret policy making nocturnal visits to our flat. This was 60 years ago but I haven't seen any major improvements during my lifetime. My impression is that things are getting considerably worse since I was a kid. Putting Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) on a US no-fly list doesn't seem to denote the easy-going liberal democracy you're describing above. There are many, many other examples as I expect you know.

And as an aside, I don't personally blame the banking system for the mess Eupe and America are currently in. I think we've all been living beyond our means (particularly countries like Greece and Italy), and have built up far too much debt. Countries shouldn't spend more than they make in taxes, and people shouldn't get themselves in debts they're unlikely to be able to repay. I think it's about time we all realised we can't live in quite the lap of luxury we have been.

On this point we disagree but as an anarchist I will die protecting your right to say it.

[Too Few Lions]

Nope, it's not a faith-based issue for me, at least I don't think any more than it is for you or anyone else. From my personal experience in life, I just don't think it would work on a large scale. I think there are too many selfish, antisocial and predatory people out there, as well as others who crave power, and others who actually want and like a rigid hierachy of authority. I lack your faith in human nature!

Me neither. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong, if wrong I am. Your experiences and mine are quite different. I would conclude that they are simply unreliable indicators of human nature provided that you could assure me that you have spent a significant amount of time living in non-hierarchical societies. If you have then we'll drop  the experience gambit altogether. If you haven't then that gap explains the difference in our takes on the subject. I have not provided any faith-based analysis. I have presented arguments from game theory and neurobiology. If you have presented evidence to the contrary I've missed it.

Personally, I don't think we should form one huge European anarchic state based on the results of game theory, unless that's what the majority of its population want. Then so be it, but a computer model is one thing, human society is another. I'm basing my thoughts on personal experience, which is all I feel I can go on. Obviously you have different personal experiences to me, and I respect that, and your opinion. To my knowledge no large anarchic states exist, so I think we have to just base our views on personal experience of humanity in general.

I would wonder if maybe there's something inherently / genetically in human nature for people who organise themselves into hierarchical societies when tribes / nations reach a certain size, given that's what's generally happened historically. I'm not sure I buy that this system has been forced on us.

Remember that the population of some small countries, Slovenia for one, are smaller than many large cities Tokyo, London, New York, Barcelona, Beijing, Milan, etc. Miraculously Slovenia has survived and even defeated a much larger military power (Serbia) in a 6 day war. I'm not claiming that the above mentioned entities are non-hierarchical but rather that smaller sized units can survive successfully in this world. Scale may be a factor but I repeat for the umpteenth time that there is no logical necessity for the existence of countries with huge populations. You can witness this today in the UK with constant pressure from at least a minority to split up the place into smaller units. Even within England, there is not a lot of love lost between north and south.  

You're right, I'm not disagreeing with you on that one. I don't consider myself English or British in any way shape or form and would happily do away with the notion of nationhood.

I think maybe you're in danger of falling into the same trap a lot of idealogues fall into, assuming that everyone else wants what you want. I would imagine if you polled the population of most countries, not many of them would want to live in an anarchic society. Just because it seems like a good idea to you, doesn't mean everyone else feels that way. And I don't believe in forcing ideologies on people, history shows what a bad idea that is.

Once again you present absolutely no evidence for your claims. You may well be right but then again you may well be wrong. If we're agreed in using an evidence-based approach to life then we need to find evidence for this issue. Classifying me as an ideologue seems to be tantamount to claiming that I am arguing for a given position. If you have another meaning for this term do me the service of informing me of it. I am not as stupid as you seem to think I am. I am under no illusions about the popularity of the views I'm expressing. But the position of atheists in general are rarely more than a small minority in many countries, which makes them no less valid  You'll have to trust me that I am in absolutely no danger of that degree of self-delusion. The idea of an anarchist imposing anything on anyone is quite amusing. I'm not sure if you're serious or taking the piss. How many times do I have to say "I could be wrong about anything I state"  before you take  any notice. Let's just say you're preaching to the choir on that point.

But you call openly yourself an anarchist, therefore I'm assuming you are arguing from a pro-anarchy position. Sorry if I've made a false assumption. You appear very intelligent, and I wouldn't suggest anything other. I enjoy reading your posts, you invariably have something interesting to say. I wasn't suggesting that yours views are wrong because you're in the minority, in my opinion it's often the the majority who are wrong. I just don't think you can  create a large anarchic state if that's not what the population wants.

As for the idea of nations, I prefer the idea of scaling up or doing without them . I think Europe's a good idea, and there haven't been any wars within the EU since it was founded. Which is a good thing given the previous 1000 years of European history! It seems to me the more small nations you have, the more chance there is of conflict between them.

But I'm definitely up for a less authoritarian and anarchic form of society. I can't say I like the current system, but on the plus side both me and you have the freedom to openly say and believe pretty much whatever we like. In the whole of human history, there aren't that many times and places where people could say the same thing.

Ok, points of agreement between us. I may be imagining things in which case I apologise but I seem to remember that recently the current government recommended that people report their anarchist neighbours to the police. Does this ring any bells? Of course we don't need to look to far to find other examples. I was brought up in a "western country" with the secret policy making nocturnal visits to our flat. This was 60 years ago but I haven't seen any major improvements during my lifetime. My impression is that things are getting considerably worse since I was a kid. Putting Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) on a US no-fly list doesn't seem to denote the easy-going liberal democracy you're describing above. There are many, many other examples as I expect you know.

like I said I'm very anti-authoritarian myself, and quite anarchic. But compare your freedoms to what you'd have had 500 years ago in Italy. You'd have been burnt at the stake for saying what you've written on this forum.

And as an aside, I don't personally blame the banking system for the mess Eupe and America are currently in. I think we've all been living beyond our means (particularly countries like Greece and Italy), and have built up far too much debt. Countries shouldn't spend more than they make in taxes, and people shouldn't get themselves in debts they're unlikely to be able to repay. I think it's about time we all realised we can't live in quite the lap of luxury we have been.

On this point we disagree but as an anarchist I will die protecting your right to say it.

thanks!

I really don't think our views are that far apart on this general question, it's just you have more faith in human nature than me and feel it could work on a large scale.

[Attila]

Yeah, looks like nations actually evolved out of the exploitation of other's resources and the eventual establishing of imaginary lines that divided what belonged to one group and not to the other. I didn't say that any other system wouldn't be possible, I just think that groups that cooperate with eachother to maintain those borders and authority will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

I couldn't agree more. This is why if were are not happy with the status quo (a) we need to identify the problem clearly (b) figure out clever and practical strategies to bring about this change. I have no a priori limitations about what these strategies might be. Indeed, they could be of the gradual, step-by-step, barely noticeable type or they could be of the revolutionary type or a zillion other possible types. I just don't know.

I do think that, in a world were resources are not equally divided, and someone is going to have less than others, that conflict is inevitable, and with that, stronger groups will incorporate others and try to violently keep those under control.

History proves you right but.... look at today's news. I'm thinking of both Libya and Tunisia. I think the people of Tunisia are getting a bit fed up with more of the same. As the Who once sang, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"  There maybe the teeniest move in that direction in the US with at least a small group realising that Obama is no different than W, Clinton, Old Bush, Reagan, Carter, ....

I don't have any good evidence other than what happened in human history (which I don't have a very deep understanding of, so correct me if I'm wrong). Small self sustaining familial groups that lived in favourable areas such as along the Nile in Egypt or in Mesopotamia for agriculture had easier access to food. Animal and plant domestication started around then. More food meant being able to have more children and sustain an ever growing population. Bigger and richer groups began to incorporate other territories and groups for resources, strategic localisation etc, because people are greedy and sustaining an ever growing group becomes increasingly more difficult but just as necessary.

Again we're back to human nature. Politicians and Clerics want you to believe what you've said: humans are basically greedy and need god or politicians (the latter being mysteriously immune to human nature). If this is indeed true, then I guess we might as well sit back and enjoy the ride because we are powerless (again this is under this view of human nature) to change anything anyway. I repeat this is the view that we are constantly fed by Religion and the politicians. This doesn't make it false but it does make it suspicious. Cui bono that we believe it. If we (me for example) don't believe it then we have two things to do: 1. Identify the problem. My humble attempt at this is my hypothesis that humans do not behave well in an authoritarian environment but they do behave well in an egalitarian environment where our counterparts are not obliged to "cooperate" (in the sense of game theory) with us but at least have the theoretical possibility of defection and vice versa. 2. Develop strategies that might reduce or eliminate the authoritarian aspect of our social/political system ("power to the people" and so forth). I have taken some small steps to ameliorate the situation in my own life which has resulted in some very satisfying successes. I dare not tell you about them lest people like TwoFewLions accuse me of imposing my views on you which, as an anarchist, I am loathe to do.

(Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel goes into this, there's even a documentary on YouTube in case you're interested and haven't watched it.)

Thanks for that. I'll check it out.

Large territories with many people run into those sorts of problems while smaller groups will be easier to sustain, if they are "blessed" with resources, or the stuff on which it's all structured.

1. As you well know living in South America, people blessed (maybe "cursed" is a better word) with resources rarely get to benefit from them under our current system. Do I really need to go into details? (I will if requested but I think you already of plenty of examples on your own).

One scenario: if conflicts are inevitable because of the above reasons and are indifferent to whether people choose or not, then wouldn't the democratization of some choices actually be more of a hindrance in some cases due to the lack of expertise (nothing to do with the intelligence of general populations, people just can't be expected to know everything and see the bigger picture if there is one) on how to best deal with a situation?

I don't understand you here. Where do you think the expertise comes from? Are you claiming that any politician in any country at any level has any form of expertise beyond how to steal and screw the public. I've lived in a fair number of different countries and never come across a single politician worth his/her own excrement. Do you seriously think that Berlusconi, Merkel, Sarko, Cameron, Zapatero, .... have any expertise that could help the public in any way shape or form? I think I need some examples of what you mean.

Maybe I'm just indoctrinated and don't see another logical sequence or conclusion...

I see you as a decent, intelligent, friendly person. You are talking about my failure and certainly not your own. If you don't see another logical sequence then I'm doing a crap job of explaining so it's my fault not yours.

You have more experience with these ideas than I, being close to many different peoples. Care to elaborate a bit? 

Do you mean the European situation? Which aspect? I'm happy to elaborate but it's a wide area. Can we narrow it down a bit?
ciao,
Attila

[Attila]

(1) I don't think we should form one huge European anarchic state based on the results of game theory, unless that's what the majority of its population want. Then so be it, but a computer model is one thing, human society is another.

(2) But you call openly yourself an anarchist, therefore I'm assuming you are arguing from a pro-anarchy position. Sorry if I've made a false assumption. You appear very intelligent, and I wouldn't suggest anything other. I enjoy reading your posts, you invariably have something interesting to say. I wasn't suggesting that yours views are wrong because you're in the minority, in my opinion it's often the the majority who are wrong. I just don't think you can  create a large anarchic state if that's not what the population wants.

I've just repeated these two extracts of your post because I think we are reaching a common position with the above comments being the only obstacle to blissful harmony.

Starting with (1) I disagree on a number of points. a. I am not advocating a huge European anarchic state. I think that's a horrible idea whether the huge state is anarchic or not. I'm advocating a cooperative association of various self-governing population groups (cities, counties, regions, provinces, whatever). Just as the EU is an association of Nations at the moment (whether it's cooperative or not is open to question). I leave open the size of the units. b. I am just wondering how familiar you are with game-theory. I don't mean to cast any aspersions but if you haven't read The Evolution of Cooperation or at least some detailed synopses of it, you are libel to be working under a false impression. The results of the various experiments are evidence. It simply shows that under certain specified conditions the optimal strategy, i.e. the one that offers the greatest material rewards, is that of mutual cooperation. This hypothesis which concerns human nature has empirical consequences and those consequence (at least some of them) can and have been tested and support this hypothesis. Your statement, "but a computer model is one thing, human society is another" seems to state that no scientific hypotheses can be made about human nature or that computer modelling is somehow disqualified as possible evidence for such hypotheses. Suppose the experiment had turned out otherwise? Suppose the results were that the most successful strategy for human groups was to always exploit and never cooperate. This aligns well with your position so would you still have such a negative impression of computer modelling? You seem to suggest that the status quo is the best system we can have and you will accept no evidence to the contrary. There is nothing I could offer that would cause you to change your mind.

(2) I expressed myself badly here. What I meant to say is that when we are all arguing an ideology. I am, you are, so is everyone else. I take a position, present some evidence that it enjoys at least a superficial plausibility and await contrary evidence. I don't think this means I'm forcing my theory on anybody.

Again, I am not now nor I have ever advocated creating a large state. Quite the contrary. The basic decision-making unit (if that's an acceptable definition of a state) should be pretty local. Anything beyond that involves a confederation/association etc. The basic unit can opt out of anything it's unhappy with. I don't know where this idea of imposing anarchism on a population comes from. It's rather the reverse: a  population imposing anarchism on a small elite group of "leaders" who are always free to leave if they're unhappy.
Hope that helps clarify what I'm talking about.

[Too Few Lions]

I've just repeated these two extracts of your post because I think we are reaching a common position with the above comments being the only obstacle to blissful harmony.

I'm always up for blissful harmony!

Starting with (1) I disagree on a number of points. a. I am not advocating a huge European anarchic state. I think that's a horrible idea whether the huge state is anarchic or not. I'm advocating a cooperative association of various self-governing population groups (cities, counties, regions, provinces, whatever). Just as the EU is an association of Nations at the moment (whether it's cooperative or not is open to question). I leave open the size of the units.

cool, I can totally agree with all of that

I am just wondering how familiar you are with game-theory. I don't mean to cast any aspersions but if you haven't read The Evolution of Cooperation or at least some detailed synopses of it, you are libel to be working under a false impression. The results of the various experiments are evidence. It simply shows that under certain specified conditions the optimal strategy, i.e. the one that offers the greatest material rewards, is that of mutual cooperation. This hypothesis which concerns human nature has empirical consequences and those consequence (at least some of them) can and have been tested and support this hypothesis. Your statement, "but a computer model is one thing, human society is another" seems to state that no scientific hypotheses can be made about human nature or that computer modelling is somehow disqualified as possible evidence for such hypotheses.

I'm not remotely knowledgeable on game theory. I just don't necessarily believe in dismantling and rearranging society based on a computer model from the 1980s. I don't think it can factor in all the complexities of a society with millions of people in, but that's just my opinion. I'm ignorant on the subject so I may well be wrong.

Suppose the experiment had turned out otherwise? Suppose the results were that the most successful strategy for human groups was to always exploit and never cooperate. This aligns well with your position so would you still have such a negative impression of computer modelling? You seem to suggest that the status quo is the best system we can have and you will accept no evidence to the contrary. There is nothing I could offer that would cause you to change your mind.

I don't know where you get that idea from, because it's not my position at all. I don't think I've ever claimed that I think exploiting people is better than cooperating with them. Whatever the results of a computer model were, I would have treated them as just that and not taken them too seriously. I don't live my life by getting a computer to decide what would be the best strategy for me to take. I just try to enjoy myself as much as I can, and hopefully not hurt too many people in the process. I also don't accept that the current model of society is just about exploitation if that's what you're trying to suggest.

I expressed myself badly here. What I meant to say is that when we are all arguing an ideology. I am, you are, so is everyone else. I take a position, present some evidence that it enjoys at least a superficial plausibility and await contrary evidence. I don't think this means I'm forcing my theory on anybody.

I actually don't feel I'm arguing from much of an ideological standpoint at all, I'm pretty apathetic on the subject and just giving my humble opinion. I like the idea of what you're suggesting (so if anything I'm in your ideological camp), I'm just skeptical over whether it could work

Again, I am not now nor I have ever advocated creating a large state. Quite the contrary. The basic decision-making unit (if that's an acceptable definition of a state) should be pretty local. Anything beyond that involves a confederation/association etc. The basic unit can opt out of anything it's unhappy with. I don't know where this idea of imposing anarchism on a population comes from. It's rather the reverse: a  population imposing anarchism on a small elite group of "leaders" who are always free to leave if they're unhappy

I was just questioning whether the majority would like to live in an anarchic state. If they would, then we should definitely give it a go and see what happens, it would probably suit me personally. But I do think that if the majority also wanted that, a democratic society should naturally move that way anyway shouldn't it? who knows, maybe it will.

[Attila]

Ok TFL, we're down to one point of difference! That's progress. I'll do some research for you to see if I can find a reasonably short summary of game-theory and it's application to problems like these. I can also give you some cases where I actually applied the theory and it worked as predicted (this one done on a micro level -- I'm only one person after all but then our discussion reduces to the issue of scalability and not to the inherent accuracy of the model. I think the respective wiki's for The Prisoner's Dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma and The Evolution of Cooperation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_Of_Cooperation spare you the trouble of reading a whole book and are a reasonable introduction to the subject. You may not be that interested which is entirely understandable. What interests me does not necessarily interest anyone else. It this exhausts your patience I'm perfectly willing to call it a day. If you care to continue I'm more than happy to carry on the discussion. It's your call.

[Too Few Lions]

don't think we need to debate any further...I think you've converted me!

or more accurately I probably actually agree with what you were saying all along, I just misunderstood what you were proposing. If it's just a more cooperative less profit making way of living, and a lot less hierarchy, then count me in.

[Attila]

don't think we need to debate any further...I think you've converted me!

or more accurately I probably actually agree with what you were saying all along, I just misunderstood what you were proposing. If it's just a more cooperative less profit making way of living, and a lot less hierarchy, then count me in.

I am drinking red wine at the moment. In fact it's a cab-sauv from Garda, not bad for less than 2€ / bottle. I raise my glass to you in the spirit of fraternal cooperation and international good-will. Now that we're united, the forces of evil and repression don't stand a chance.
Now for the chicken!
ciao

[Too Few Lions]

and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!

[Attila]

and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!

So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?

[Tank]

and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!

So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?

Not ye....

[Attila]

and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!

So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?

Not ye....

TFL! THEY'VE TAKEN TANK!!!! The swine! Where can we find another carebear on short notice? They're never around when you need them.

[Tank]

and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!

So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?

Not ye....

TLS! THEY'VE TAKEN TANK!!!! The swine! Where can we find another carebear on short notice? They're never around when you need them.

they sent me back it was just a tease to show me what I was missing dagnabit!

[Attila]

and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!

So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?

Not ye....

TFL! THEY'VE TAKEN TANK!!!! The swine! Where can we find another carebear on short notice? They're never around when you need them.

they sent me back it was just a tease to show me what I was missing dagnabit!

Well.... c'mon out with it, Tank. Tell all. What were you missing? Nothing that you need down here I hope.

[Tank]

and I raise a glass of flat, warm but rather tasty English beer to you too my friend!

So neither of us have been raptured away yet. I think we're running out of time. Any word at your end?

Not ye....

TFL! THEY'VE TAKEN TANK!!!! The swine! Where can we find another carebear on short notice? They're never around when you need them.

they sent me back it was just a tease to show me what I was missing dagnabit!

Well.... c'mon out with it, Tank. Tell all. What were you missing? Nothing that you need down here I hope.

A bloody great long queue at the moment. With eternity to work with efficiency is not a driving factor in Heaven and as all 'time and motion' experts go to hell it isn't going to get better in the short term