The nature of human nature

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

Don't worry, I don't see it as you pushing any ideology on me, I asked first didn't I? And I find that I've always agreed with some of the points you're making.

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.

I wasn't really thinking of politicians when I mentioned expertise, they're...politicians and very good at...politics.  I was thinking of the more administrative types, ideally not too involved in politics and lobbies.  Again, it's worth stressing that I'm not saying that it's because I think that people are incapable of knowing what's good for them or what they want to an extent, but sometimes they don't and can't be expected to see the bigger picture and because of that, if left to their own devices, have a higher chance of choosing a solution that might adversely affect them in the long run. 

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.

No, it's more because I really don't know enough to say, or have concrete experiences to lend faith to humans being able to pull it off at a larger scale. Your arguments for how people cooperate with each other are compelling though, I just think that the more people you have in a system, with more differing interests and personalities, the more chaotic and unpredictable it becomes. IMO eventually at one point, some sort of order will have to be imposed on the system, from somewhere, or it might self-organise into some form of governmental body that will impose its authority to both keep its status quo and try and maintain some level of order.

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

Based on what you were saying earlier about dialectal boundaries, I'm curious to know how things are in one country, Italy where many dialects co-exist. Does that strengthen your anarchism based on what you see and know?



I've reached a point where I don't really have anything good to add.


How would something like the law work? Is that considered to be imposed authority and therefore evil in an anarchist system?

[Attila]

I wasn't really thinking of politicians when I mentioned expertise, they're...politicians and very good at...politics.  I was thinking of the more administrative types, ideally not too involved in politics and lobbies.  Again, it's worth stressing that I'm not saying that it's because I think that people are incapable of knowing what's good for them or what they want to an extent, but sometimes they don't and can't be expected to see the bigger picture and because of that, if left to their own devices, have a higher chance of choosing a solution that might adversely affect them in the long run. 

I'll jump in here after having chopped away some of the undergrowth of our previous posts. I'm perfectly happy to have a cadre of skilled people to deal with society's administrative and technical requirements. I don't see a problem with a group of smaller decision-making units cooperating and jointly hiring such people. They (the ones hired) would be responsible to those who hired them. So what they do would be under local control rather than answerable to a central authority.

IMO eventually at one point, some sort of order will have to be imposed on the system, from somewhere, or it might self-organise into some form of governmental body that will impose its authority to both keep its status quo and try and maintain some level of order.

I don't see why this would be necessary. Local groups are already able to look after themselves. There are no higher groups but rather coalitions of local groups collaborating on projects of mutual interest. After this is not so different from the theoretical model of the EU. It has been corrupted by member states into some rather ghastly. This is predictable given the top-down structure of the decision making entities (the member-nations) but is not a structural problem inherent in EU. It's the implementation rather than the model that is a fault.

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

Based on what you were saying earlier about dialectal boundaries, I'm curious to know how things are in one country, Italy where many dialects co-exist. Does that strengthen your anarchism based on what you see and know?
[/quote]
Absolutely. There is virtually no feeling of Italian national unity beyond the "official" level. As in most countries of any size, the deepest dislike or even hatred in extreme cases are between the different populations grouped together against their will. If you take the pressure off and let decisions be made locally, then immediately the pressure comes off.

I've reached a point where I don't really have anything good to add.


How would something like the law work? Is that considered to be imposed authority and therefore evil in an anarchist system?

It boils down to what law. If people don't feel they're being screwed over they happily work together without much law. If they're are disputes they are typically adjudicated by a bunch of their neighbours. This I have seen in operation and even sat in on several sitting of this council (silently of course  ). It does work very well.

[xSilverPhinx]

That all actually makes a lot of sense...thanks, it's been enlightening.

[Attila]

That all actually makes a lot of sense...thanks, it's been enlightening.

Thanks to you. You ask the right questions. I don't know if you're familiar with the A Very Short Introduction They have them on a bunch of topics such as Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. I'm reading the Logic: A Very Short Introduction one now. It has a bunch of nice logical rebuttals for "proofs" of the existence of god. There's one on Anarchism too. I have pdf versions of them. Send me a pm if you'd care to get a copy of any of them.

[xSilverPhinx]

Here's a TEDTalk you might find interesting, on the relationship between authority and power, based on the Milgrim Experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, cult leaders among others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu

These things are very interesting.  

[Attila]

Here's a TEDTalk you might find interesting, on the relationship between authority and power, based on the Milgrim Experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, cult leaders among others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu

These things are very interesting.  

Funny, I just discovered these TED videos. I've subscribed to them now with my trusty GPodder. I watched one about the Nordon bomb sight. I read about the SPE years ago. That's the one where the students were divided into prisoners and guards and the the "guards" started to act like absolute monsters. That along with the Submission to Authority experiment (subjects believing they were "shocking" actors with higher and higher voltages on the orders of someone in a lab coat. A bit more empirical support for the "authority is evil" position, eh? 

[xSilverPhinx]

Here's a TEDTalk you might find interesting, on the relationship between authority and power, based on the Milgrim Experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, cult leaders among others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg&feature=relmfu

These things are very interesting. 

Funny, I just discovered these TED videos. I've subscribed to them now with my trusty GPodder. I watched one about the Nordon bomb sight. I read about the SPE years ago. That's the one where the students were divided into prisoners and guards and the the "guards" started to act like absolute monsters. That along with the Submission to Authority experiment (subjects believing they were "shocking" actors with higher and higher voltages on the orders of someone in a lab coat. A bit more empirical support for the "authority is evil" position, eh? 

That's why I added the link.  

[Crow]

That's why I added the link.  

Tedtalks are fantastic, this is one of my favorites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmZBMuZ6vE

[xSilverPhinx]

That's why I added the link.   

Tedtalks are fantastic, this is one of my favorites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmZBMuZ6vE

Ah yes, I remember watching that one long ago. Crows are fascinating because...well...they're birds, and birds aren't expected to be as intelligent as they are. They play complex social games with one another, and some even claim that they have theory of mind, with is something usually more associated with mammals of higher intelligence.