Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

Palomar · 2005-07-28 07:32:58

*Just some food for thought which seems applicable not only to our current urbane societies but future space colonies/civs as well:

A bit of a quote from an editor regarding Jung's works (in quotation marks) then quotes by Jung himself (in quote boxes):

"Current extinction processes (in the natural world) are paralleled by an atrophying of phylogenetic or survival instincts in Homo sapiens. One symptom of this is the phenomenal rise in autoimmune disorders in the last decade. 'Atrophy of instinct' is how Jung diagnosed the malaise that affects those of us living urbanely:

Civilized man...is in danger of losing all contact with the world of instinct -- a danger that is still further increased by his living an urbane existance in what seems to be a purely manmade environment. This loss of instinct is largely responsible for the pathological condition of contemporary culture.

"Jung discovered, however, that instincts do not fully extinct; rather, they fall into the unconscious and become dormant, but potentially can be revived."

-also-

Atrophy of instinct is equivalent to pathological suggestibility, the devastating effects of which may be witnessed in the recurrent psychic epidemics of totalitarian madness.

Comments? Especially about the totalitarian aspect? Is he over-reacting? Are humans more flexible and adaptable than he seems to give us credit for? Or does this make sense and it'll behoove us to terraform (flora and fauna)?

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-28 17:49:14

Think about what is being said here:

Civilized man...is in danger of losing all contact with the world of instinct -- a danger that is still further increased by his living an urbane existence in what seems to be a purely manmade environment. This loss of instinct is largely responsible for the pathological condition of contemporary culture.

While "a danger" is a value judgment, the rest is analysis of behavior to stimuli.

'Instinct', is a behavioral reaction to the interpretation of external stimuli causing immediate action in the absence of higher cognition.

All animals have a built in predisposition towards stimuli as either a 'fight or flight' response. The determination of actual action is based on the ability of the mind to immediately assess the situation, i.e. stimulus, and determine a course of action.

Imagine a pan in the kitchen catches fire. A usual instant reaction is to try and put it out.

Imagine your house is on fire. The usual reaction is to run from the house.

Some will run from the kitchen fire, but stay in the house while it on fire. Some make various determinations on the same theme, but the commonality is that the decision process is being driven by the instincts that drive us, and by the interpretation of environmental cues.

This is largely why you see behavioral disorders. A behavioral disorder is little more than a different set of value interpretations on the same environmental stimuli.

Our higher brain functions are continually trying to balances the needs of the instinctual interpretation and response to the outward stimuli.

What I believe Jung is commenting on, or what we might take away from his analysis, is that in the absence of direct environmental stimuli, man will create its own.

Instead of reacting to the weather, we react to each other. We create artificial constructs and these constructs become replacements for the previous environment to which we once always responded to.

The problem in my mind is that humans seem to be too flexible, too adaptable.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-29 05:18:52

Or it could simply be a matter of perspective. Many of the skewed or self-destructive behaviors of humans aren't that different from behaviors exhibited by many other animals. In captivity.

Perhaps we're simply seeing the effects of a species that is no longer living in the habitat it evolved for and hasn't for a very long time. In which case it isn't so much a "loss of instinct" as a disconnect between what our instincts evolved to respond to versus what we actually experience.

clark · 2005-07-29 05:32:14

So based on that analysis, what do you think the effect will be when people start living on Mars or in space, permanently?

Confined space. Unnatural environment.

The advantage of higher cognitive functions is largely the ability to suppress, and make better value judgments, on instinctual response to stimuli.

We may have an urge to be like lemmings and run off a cliff, but we are able to suppress that urge, or redirect it, towards a more positive outcome.

What I was trying to get at though is that behavioral disorder is independent of environmental stimuli. It is either a hard wired or soft wired error in the mind when determining appropriate responses to outside stimuli.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-29 05:40:07

So based on that analysis, what do you think the effect will be when people start living on Mars or in space, permanently?

A mild increase of the sort of weirdness in behavior we see today. We're already living in an unnatural enviroment full of unnatural stimuli, many people spend most of their time indoors anyway. Living on Mars will just be a matter of degrees rather than a profound change from a stimulus/response standpoint.

Reptoid · 2005-07-30 23:48:10

Comments? Especially about the totalitarian aspect? Is he over-reacting? Are humans more flexible and adaptable than he seems to give us credit for? Or does this make sense and it'll behoove us to terraform (flora and fauna)?
--Cindy

I don't believe Jung is over-reacting at all. History, psychology, sociology, everything pertaining to the study of humans has shown how easy it is for the masses to be whipped up into "totalitarian madness" by their over-reliance and trust of authority figures. Some philosophers have postulated that one of the reasons modern humans are so eager for highly destructive wars is because the war gives people a "proper" outlet to express a kind of unconscious rage at being suppressed and disempowered by much of modern civilization (it's interesting that a lot of terrorists and pro-war people also tend to be very religious, and religion often attempts to ruthelessly oppress a lot of our instincts toward sex,etc.) It's not good to champion the colonization of space because it'll only continue the cycle of war and competition for resources. It's foolish to assume space colonists will always be benevolent toward Earth and they'd have the ultimate high ground from which to launch attacks.

idiom · 2005-07-31 01:20:08

Yes but think of the neat propulsion systems we will develop in order to launch attacks in a timely fashion.

srmeaney · 2005-08-09 04:15:26

As soon as we started up with that whole self sacrifice thing, you knew there would be a problem.

"You want me to lay down my life so the President's oil shares will double in value."

Yes but think of the neat propulsion systems we will develop in order to launch attacks in a timely fashion.

Already have them...Hypersonic Missile Technology will put that Aussie built warhead over Washington in three hours. They should be getting there about now.

Mundaka · 2005-08-10 11:59:20

Rxke · 2005-08-19 18:35:42

Very nice, Mundaka!

I guess the biggest problem would be crowding, at least on-route to Mars. But then again, it's only several months, and you have something to look forward to... And then there are spacewalks, of course...

Interesting stuff, Clark.
Man creating his own stimuli... What about the 'boredom' thing, then?
esp. young people claim a lot they're bored, is that a temporary deficiency to be able to find stimuli?
And... Depression, a long term deficiency in that aspect, then?

And... when you deprive higher animals of stimuli, what do they do, compared to humans?

Rxke · 2005-08-19 18:41:48

to come back to the crowding... that can be defined twofold:
-being cooped up in too small a space for a set of people. Stressy.
-being unable to flee that situation. you can do a stroll in yer suit, but eventually you'll have to come back to that situation you wanted to get away from. Double stressy.

But... How different is that to primitive man's predicament?

They couldn't run either, I'd think, survivability for a lone H Sapiens wasn't very good, I'd think. Go to sleep and you're dead, probably.

Hmmm... Did our culture make it harder to live on eachothers lip or not?

clark · 2005-08-23 19:55:01

Well, I will give you my theories... I've thought about it for a while, and I have tried to look at it from the inside out.

Mars and space is not independence, it is interdependency. It is not isolation that leads to freedom, but desolation that requires limited freedom.

One of the greatest lies, at least in my opinion, is the one that is told about space leading to an opportunity to escape from the stagnant social development and control of existing political and cultural structures. On the surface, broad generalizations can make this sound plausible, but it makes no sense when you apply any assumed constraints that can be realistically expected from the requirements of living in a non-earth environment.

One, social constraints imposed on individuals, usually assumed to be stifling, are the direct result of higher population densities. These constraints are further compounded by an increase in anonymity of individuals among a group. As it becomes harder to know the people around you, we subject ourselves to a greater number and scope of regulations to ensure efficient and safe interaction among strangers.

Ever walk across the street when all that is keeping 15 tons of trucker death from running you over is a colored light? That's it in a nutshell.

The reason there will be more requirements and regulations in space is because the environment requires higher specialization in individuals to achieve higher efficiencies in productivity to support the cost of living in such an expensive environment (total subsistence resources, nothing there is free). In order to trust that your space suit will work as it should, there will be laws and regulations (and all the requisite oversight to ensure safety). There will be regulations and ordinances and standardization, all for interoperability and the establishment of base line performance to ensure a level of safety and expectation. Individuals will not be able to build their own suit because the high level of technology will be so great as to preclude that possibility (not to mention the level of manufacturing involved).

You can mass produce jeans, and a bad pair means a hole in the crotch. A suit, or a glove piece means people die or limbs get lost.

Think about it, a defect is found in a suit, and they have to recall all units- or they have to be able to determine the part that is at fault. In either instance there will be a need for a massive amount of record keeping, and oversight to ensure compliance with tracking.

If you automate any of these processes, as you must given the environment, you necessarily create huge electronic databases. Privacy becomes effectively zero.

This leads us to two, which is the lack of personal privacy due to the requirements of the environment and the necessity to ensure the safety of the group from the individual. All areas will be monitored at some level, be it presence indicators (need to know which rooms you can seal or not), cameras (need visual records of movement or controlled areas), temperature gauges, access entry/exit. At all times we will need to know the location of people and their general status. Why?

Because a breach of the habitat, or other emergency may require this information. This is true even for a small group. It becomes even more urgent and necessary for a larger group because issues of deliberate or accidental damage that can cause significant injury or death to more people dramatically increases.

Three, the social and cultural integration of individuals within the group will be affected by these requirements. Most will begin out of efficiency and simple practicality. As time develops, will become cemented due to requirements and expectations. This cannot be escaped, and there is one real reason why...

Children.

It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on or what you personally believe. If it was just you and your kids, you would be right. But the fact that it is you and your kids, and that guy and his kids, and that woman and her kids means that everything you believe just went out the window.

All the laws we have, at least in my mind, are the result of the interaction of families with one another. The laws are there to protect each others kids from other people. Why?

Because children are the very basis of property law. In my opinion.

The hereditary instinct is older than our sense of "I own this dirt".

It is why we subject ourselves to the laws and regulations so we can have some modicum of trust with other strangers. As more strangers surround our families and children, the more laws and regulations we require. The more reliant we are on other individuals for sustaining our family, the more we require oversight and regulation to ensure that we can maintain our family safely.

This is why you see less laws in smaller rural communities that have a low level of subsistence requirements versus a greater number of laws and regulations within a large metropolitan community that has a high degree of interdependency for subsistence survival/

So in summation, you can have the Mars of your dreams, but only if you leave the kids at home. Otherwise, every where we go, it will always be the same thing- only worse on Mars or in space.

You can tell me I am wrong, but I honestly don’t think I am.

Rxke · 2005-08-24 06:07:06

Hmmm...

Using a spacesuit-bluejeans analogy is seriously flawed, IMO...

A spacesuit is a mini spacecraft, so it would be better to compare it to a car, or even a small plane... not simple clothing.

And cars are regulated today too, so not much difference.

clark · 2005-08-24 08:17:19

You may have misunderstood Rxke. I was pointing out the vast difference between the two, and how complicated the technology and material will be in relation to earthly couter parts. This difference will require all the oversight and regulation.

Rxke · 2005-08-25 00:55:51

But it *isn't* a counterpart. There will be bluejeans on Mars too, Spacesuits might look a bit like clothes, but they are not clothing, they're more like vehicules or mini-houses...

BTW I'm not arguing against the point you make, but saying you use a poor example/analogy.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 05:37:27

Intersting. And while I think that clark is essentially correct in his analysis, he's overlooking something.

Off-world communities will need to have a certain degree of social controls in place to function, but whether they are perceived as stifling or not is highly subjective. If a group of people all choose to live the same way there is no feeling of "control" or loss of freedom since they all do what they choose to do anyway.

So a libertarian colony could very well work if the colonists shared the same values. A fascist colony could work wonderfully if every colonist was a willing participant.

But then they breed as humans are apt to do. What guarantee do we have that the children will carry on that stability? None. However two other factors kick in. First, an increased population leads to increased infrastructure. More livable space, more resources, it could very well be that in a subjective sense perceived freedom will increase as cities develop, despite what we would see as stifling controls.

Then there is the question of technology. We're on the edge of a major shift in manufacturing. It won't be all that long before we get to a point where any individual with a few pieces of equipment will be able to make almost any tool or component they require. If you have a rover, an inflatable greenhouse, a computer and a 3d printer you can live almost anywhere on Mars for extended periods of time. Get several of these people banding together and you have fluid nomadic communities tied together by whatever traits they choose. Someone strays too far, they float off on their own for awhile. As long as no Martian Authority flys cops around the wilderness harassing them those people would in many ways have freedom beyond what is available on Earth today.

In short, any projections based solely on past experience is only partially relevant. The twin conditions of the Martian environment and mid-to-late 21st Century technology will throw much of our current thinking about such things into the trash. Not a utopia to be sure, but not just some replay of past experience either.

clark · 2005-08-25 06:54:30

Everyone is a critic.

As population increases, anonmity increases, thus requiring more cultural and overt laws to maintain a level of expectant behavior. As a colony increases in size, the physical aspect of the habitat will create more failure points within a complicated and advanced system. Interconnected areas require oversight and regulation to ensure that a failure in one area will not mean other people will die (see fire zone ordinances for homes as a current example)

As for 3-d printers. Sure. And the Singularity point will end the reign oh humankind as we become super beings. Until the technology actually exsist to make complicated and advanced tools, this premise will have no effect.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 07:00:33

As for 3-d printers. Sure. And the Singularity point will end the reign oh humankind as we become super beings. Until the technology actually exsist to make complicated and advanced tools, this premise will have no effect.

The technology already exists to make components, either solid plastic or metal as well as circuit boards directly from CAD designs. Design, "print," assemble. I've seen it done. All we're looking at now is further development to make the technology viable in environments other than the industrial settings they're currently used in. No uber-tech nano-machine replicators required.

It'll do for manufacturing what the internet did for information.

clark · 2005-08-25 07:03:24

I await SPAM manufacturing then.

Rxke · 2005-08-25 09:12:25

Don't worry, DRM will make that impossible.

Big industry will want to keep control.

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 09:32:20

How good would this 3D printer be and what is to stop people from using it to make weapons or other destructive tools.

clark · 2005-08-25 09:41:31

Wake me up when it can create complex molecules. Then plug me in, I wont be going anywhere for a very long while.

Think about it, but don't talk about it.

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 09:48:45

Wake me up when it can create complex molecules. Then plug me in, I wont be going anywhere for a very long while.
Think about it, but don't talk about it.

Watch your dosages. and don’t forget to pay your power bill.

edit: Talk to you kids about 3D printers.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-25 10:18:23

How good would this 3D printer be and what is to stop people from using it to make weapons or other destructive tools.

Some of the industrial units in use today make prototype parts with powdered metal. They are completely useable metal parts. You could drop them into an assemblyline bin at any major auto company with no ill effect to the final product. If the units become considerably faster they could conceivably be used for production runs.

There's nothing to stop people from making weapons. With technology available right now anyone with some CAD experience can design a firearm, "print" the parts and assemble it. On some level, that's one of the best things about it.

Seriously, we'll finally have to put all this weapon-centric thinking about crime behind us and accept that bad-guys always find a way to get weapons, better let people have the means to defend themselves. It'll scare the bejesus out of some people but that genie is already climbing out into the world.

Brave new world friends, full of gun-toting techies.

John Creighton · 2005-08-25 10:31:13

How good would this 3D printer be and what is to stop people from using it to make weapons or other destructive tools.
Some of the industrial units in use today make prototype parts with powdered metal. They are completely useable metal parts. You could drop them into an assemblyline bin at any major auto company with no ill effect to the final product. If the units become considerably faster they could conceivably be used for production runs.
There's nothing to stop people from making weapons. With technology available right now anyone with some CAD experience can design a firearm, "print" the parts and assemble it. On some level, that's one of the best things about it.
Seriously, we'll finally have to put all this weapon-centric thinking about crime behind us and accept that bad-guys always find a way to get weapons, better let people have the means to defend themselves. It'll scare the bejesus out of some people but that genie is already climbing out into the world.
Brave new world friends, full of gun-toting techies.

Guns in a pressurized vessel. That out to be great. Especially with armor piercing bullets to penetrate the body armor. Anyway how do you prove you shot someone in self defense. And if a criminal knows they are going to be shot in self defense maybe they should adopt a shoot first ask questions later mentality.

edit: If I have a gun and someone unarmed jumps me do I shot him? What if he takes my gun then what recourse do I have?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-07-28 07:32:58

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#2 2005-07-28 17:49:14

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#3 2005-07-29 05:18:52

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#4 2005-07-29 05:32:14

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#5 2005-07-29 05:40:07

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#6 2005-07-30 23:48:10

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#7 2005-07-31 01:20:08

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#8 2005-08-09 04:15:26

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#9 2005-08-10 11:59:20

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#10 2005-08-19 18:35:42

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#11 2005-08-19 18:41:48

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#12 2005-08-23 19:55:01

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#13 2005-08-24 06:07:06

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#14 2005-08-24 08:17:19

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#15 2005-08-25 00:55:51

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#16 2005-08-25 05:37:27

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#17 2005-08-25 06:54:30

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#18 2005-08-25 07:00:33

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#19 2005-08-25 07:03:24

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#20 2005-08-25 09:12:25

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#21 2005-08-25 09:32:20

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#22 2005-08-25 09:41:31

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#23 2005-08-25 09:48:45

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#24 2005-08-25 10:18:23

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

#25 2005-08-25 10:31:13

Re: Jung & Atrophy of Instinct

Board footer