Yesterday's U.S. elections

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-17 03:07:21

Hi everybody!

I read recently, for what it's worth here, that the 98% chimp DNA thing may be wrong. Some researchers now believe that the figure is closer to 95%.

I think AltToWar might have been disagreeing with something I said in a post about 1 page back - that humans are a flawed species. I didn't mean flawed as in original sin, I meant that we're carrying a lot of unfortunate baggage from our simian ancestry.

Here in Australia, we have a substantial problem with 'broken homes' and single parents trying to raise children. Actually, 25% of all Australian children are born outside of marriage these days. ( Before anybody goes into attack mode, I state here and now that I am not an orthodox adherent of any religion and do not have an axe to grind about sex outside marriage or whatever. All I care about is that children have a stable and loving environment in which to grow up.)
Time and time again, we get news about another child battered to death by a 'de facto' husband. The de facto is not the child's father but lives with the mother. We never hear of biological fathers battering their biological offspring.

Aetius is correct when he outlines the kind of appalling savagery of which chimpanzees are capable. I distinctly remember seeing a fascinating documentary which overturned the popular notion that chimps are gentle guileless creatures.
One of the worst aspects of their behaviour, which stuck in my mind for its sheer callousness, was that of males towards females nursing another male's child. If a female is breast-feeding young, she is (a) infertile and (b) not interested in sex anyhow. In order to successfully mate with that female, the male needs to get rid of the baby ... and he does!! The standard method is to snatch the child away and bash its brains out on a tree trunk or a rock. After a brief period of mourning, the female is then ready to be inseminated by the simicidal suitor and will then disseminate his genes, not those of the previous father!

Every time I see news on TV of another baby killed by its 'de facto' father, I think of chimpanzees.

Chimps also engage in border warfare with other bands of chimps, do all those other things Aetius mentioned, and always have a dominant alpha male who exercises power by brute force.
The parallels with humanity are striking. Anyone who chooses to ignore these parallels and pretends they don't apply to modern mankind, is 'playing with a short deck' and can never fully comprehend the human condition.
Some of us here at New Mars won't like this assertion and will attempt to deny its importance. I understand your motives and sympathise. It's very disquieting to see just how thin a veneer of civilisation that 5% of our DNA provides, and how close to the animal kingdom we really are.

Saddam Hussein is a dominant alpha male. When push comes to shove, so is Al Gore (however much he may try to deny it), and so is George W. Bush. These people haven't arrived where they are by being gentle and self-effacing. Politics is the new jungle and the new chimps have new weapons and new tactics ... but the rules have barely changed.

Just because I'm enough of a realist to recognise its existence, doesn't mean to say that I condone all of this chimpanzee behaviour. I don't condone imperialism and I don't condone the exploitation of the weak by the strong. There are better and far more productive ways of making us all better off! Beyond a healthy level of competition, the best tactic by far for humanity's future is sensible cooperation and teamwork. Only a neanderthal could seriously suggest otherwise.

In other words, I'm with Cindy. It may only be 5%, but Vive la difference!!

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-17 04:12:25

When did I ever assert that rich people were superior to poor? What I am saying is that within the natural order, the weak are always prey to the strong.

Well, you didn't. But you assert that the natural order is ?the foundation upon which all else must be built.? Implying that man ought to simply allow or promote human society to follow a hierarchal, or ?wild? form of organization. In a human society, this means that the rich dominate the poor, simply put. In that sense you do suggest that rich are superior to the poor.

The problem here, and let me try to clarify; is that you associate interspecies relationships with intraspecies relationships. Various species are undoubtedly inferior or superior to one another, there are obvious physical differences that make this unavoidable. However, when we speak in terms of one species, particularly the human species, we find that all those within the species are equal. At least from a social standpoint. As long as you're a normal human being, without any extreme abnormalities (that is, you don't live in a 5th world being exposed to radiation from megacorps, and so on), you're equally capable to do whatever.

Thus the magic of being human.

The only "right" they have is to fight for survival, but because they are weaker, they usually lose.

Technically speaking, they're not actually losing. Though the US may not want to admit it, world wealth distribution is getting better. The rich are only destined to become poorer. And the powerful are only destined to become weaker.

But if you're speaking in general terms, and not intraspecific, then you're obviously right, and I'm not going to argue that. A gazelle has no option but to run from the cheetah. But this is an interspecific point of view, and is totally irrelevant when we talk about how one society of one species ought to be organized!

Law exists to mitigate that tendency, but does not negate it. If you are walking through the woods and a bear attacks you, you have no "right" to safety, all you can do is fight or run.

Well, law doesn't exist in the wild (law is human-made, after all), so this isn't a fair example. A bear obviously doesn't know not to eat you. Despite the fact that some wildlife officals will probably hunt it down after they find your body.

And I actually don't think law helps mitigate human intraspecies ?preying.? (Struggle may be a more appropriate word, here.) Indeed, in many ways law actually works to enforce the power of the stronger upon the weak! It is only when the weak stand up to law, and question its rationality, that law helps mitigate struggle.

Replace the words "woods" with "city" and "bear" with "criminal" and the essential dynamics of the situation are the same. The philosophical constructs of civil society don't exist.

Sure they do. The bear doesn't know law, and can't be expected to obey it. A criminal does know law, and is expected to obey it. Law exists for humans, not only so they can be protected from one another, but so that know what they ought not do themselves.

"Liberal contamination" implies that I view liberalism in any form as bad, this is not so.

You do unfairly view a legitimate form of liberalism badly by suggesting that liberal social-scientists are in a ?state of denial.? This isn't really justified. Liberal social-scientists are in a domain that is explicitly outside the natural order.

Of course, todays "liberals" are in many ways not liberal at all.

I can at least agree with you there. Although I can't view all liberalism to be bad, and indeed agree with most of what is expressed, I do disagree with a large number of issues that come up.

Mark S · 2002-11-17 09:22:22

The other criticism is the No Fly Zones. America requested the U.N. establish No Fly Zones after the Gulf War. The U.N. said No. America and Brittan have been enforcing the No Fly Zones anyway. Iraq could argue this is an act of aggression against Iraq; in fact, Iraq could try to claim its attempts to shoot at American war planes patrolling Iraqi air space are simply self-defence. No one could possibly defend the actions of Iraq, but two wrongs do not make a right. Could we at least see the current action against Iraq put a permanent end to the No Fly Zones?

The U.N. didn't approve the No-Fly Zones?

Only Iraq has rejected the legitimacy of the no-fly zones. And I think Saddam welcomes them, because it gives him a chance to shoot down an American plane and score a big propaganda victory.

The no-fly zones have strengthened Iraq's desire to wage war with the United States and support the Wahabbis in thei war with the United States. But the no-fly zones have also given Kurds and Shiites a safe haven from which a rebellion could begin.

Cobra Commander · 2002-11-18 13:10:09

When did I ever assert that rich people were superior to poor? What I am saying is that within the natural order, the weak are always prey to the strong.
Well, you didn't. But you assert that the natural order is ?the foundation upon which all else must be built.? Implying that man ought to simply allow or promote human society to follow a hierarchal, or ?wild? form of organization. In a human society, this means that the rich dominate the poor, simply put. In that sense you do suggest that rich are superior to the poor.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. By stating that natural order is the foundation, I do not mean that everything built on it must follow its form. We simply need to be aware of what naturally tends to occur in the absence of forces to counter it.

The problem here, and let me try to clarify; is that you associate interspecies relationships with intraspecies relationships. Various species are undoubtedly inferior or superior to one another, there are obvious physical differences that make this unavoidable. However, when we speak in terms of one species, particularly the human species, we find that all those within the species are equal.

The distinction between interspecies and intraspecies relationships doesn't exist in this case. Nearly every species fights among its own kind for one reason or another. In many it is to establish dominance, the strongest contender usually winning, barring fluke occurances that alter the natural trend. Whether it's a lion taking down a gazelle, two males fighting over mating rights, a pedestrian facing a mugger in an alley, or two corporate excutives trying to swindle one another; the rules are the same. He who is stronger (within the context of their form of "combat") is very likely to be the victor.

The only "right" they have is to fight for survival, but because they are weaker, they usually lose.
Technically speaking, they're not actually losing. Though the US may not want to admit it, world wealth distribution is getting better. The rich are only destined to become poorer. And the powerful are only destined to become weaker.

Again making everything a question of distribution of wealth. Karl Marx would be proud.

Law exists to mitigate that tendency, but does not negate it. If you are walking through the woods and a bear attacks you, you have no "right" to safety, all you can do is fight or run.
Well, law doesn't exist in the wild (law is human-made, after all), so this isn't a fair example.

That's exactly the point. Law only exists because humans agree that it does, therefore when one human decides not to follow it, it has no hold on him. The bear doesn't know, the man doesn't care. The result is the same: the "prey" can only fight or flee.

Liberal social-scientists are in a domain that is explicitly outside the natural order.

I think that every time they speak

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-18 16:05:31

Mark S, nope, the UN didn't approve the no fly zones. This is why Iraq feels legitimized shooting at aircraft. Of course, most Americans don't understand this fact. Though its arguable that the '90's resoultions do allow us to have a no fly zone.

By stating that natural order is the foundation, I do not mean that everything built on it must follow its form. We simply need to be aware of what naturally tends to occur in the absence of forces to counter it.

I agree there, and I constantly make this a point in my comments. People cannot be equal, nor free, unless they themselves strive for it. Many Americans simply don't wish to be equal, or free. But's pretty obvious that natural order forces are much less apparent, if not completely needless, intraspecifically.

The distinction between interspecies and intraspecies relationships doesn't exist in this case. Nearly every species fights among its own kind for one reason or another.

Sure it does. Not everything is so black and white. Intraspecific orginzation, especially in species with similar individuals, isn't about who is the strongest, but I would say it's about who has the most resources (and who is the luckiest).

Consdier a pack of wolves. How much weaker than the leader is the ?weakest? wolf? I am willing to wager, that if it's not sick, it could probably put up a good fight with the pack leader, if not win! The leader is only the leader because he has a slight genetic advantage, and was overall lucky, really.

He who is stronger (within the context of their form of "combat") is very likely to be the victor.

Hmm, okay, I agree with you. Like I said, a gazelle has no option but to run from the cheetah. But think about that. I think that interspecifically, superiority is largely physical, whereas intraspecifically, it's just dumb luck!

I just beat you up in a fight. Is it because I'm stronger or because I had access to a gym and lifted weights in my spare time?

You may not see a distinction here, but I do. A gazelle, no matter how many weights it lifts, doesn't have a chance against a cheetah.

Again making everything a question of distribution of wealth. Karl Marx would be proud.

I think Karl Marx lost his touch as he got older( from what I've been reading about him). I really wonder what would have happened with Marxism had he not argued with Proudhon about organization. I honestly think that he agreed with Proudhon on many issues, but just disagreed beause of his silly ego!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2002-11-17 03:07:21

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#77 2002-11-17 04:12:25

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#78 2002-11-17 09:22:22

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#79 2002-11-18 13:10:09

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

#80 2002-11-18 16:05:31

Re: Yesterday's U.S. elections

Board footer