Below is a comment I wrote, here fleshed out a bit, in response to a post by Richard Regener, entitled, "Can World Peace Ever Become Reality?" And in my hubris, I decided it was good enough to share as a topic of general conversation. My take is that peace is an unnatural state for a living planet. What's yours?
It's not a mistake to "act naturally". Human species want to survive like other species. Individual humans take actions that will enhance survival, or if they don't, their survival is endangered. Therefore it is natural for humans to fight against perceived threats. It makes great Darwinian sense for species to naturally do things which enhance their chances of survival. Starvation being a perceived threat, it is only natural for a species to relish the act of killing and eating prey. It makes sense that if the acts were carried out with gusto and enthusiasm, that they are more likely to succeed. If the hunter species has reason, then they are more likely to cooperate in the hunt. If such a hunt were successful, the many would have food to eat and the survival of the collect would be enhanced. Seeing this as desirable, and seeing that such an enhancement had been due to the hand of the hunter, the hunter may believe that he holds some special power over those who partook of the meat without joining the hunt. This can lead to illogical but intoxicating feelings such as arrogance, power, hubris, etc. The hunter, being well sated, may still desire the 'rush' or intoxication in the hunt, and illogically project his feelings of power to others of his tribe, especially those who did not participate through weakness, old age, or child-bearing. The relish remains, but the hot dog with inadequate reasoning powers can't cut the mustard, and ends up jeopardizing their own chances by being 'too smart for their own good.' Now the successful hunter has taken a road which is very likely to lead to conflict on an ever larger scale, ironically endangering the very survival that reason originally had enhanced.
One two, skip a few, eight, nine ten...
In this light, I submit that the phrase "world peace" describes a state of being unnatural to humans, in fact to this whole planet. If you want a peaceful world, go to a barren planet where nothing ever happens because no matter or energy ever interacts. And make sure you go alone.
World peace is overrated, and I daresay, it sounds really boring, if not oppressive. No thanks to that.
I admit this is chopped and rough, but so was the Gettysburg Address, pardon my hubris.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 52
the hard question
Not a snowballs chance in hell,
I didn't even comment on that post
I think human nature is not that limited.
I think Rick is right that our heritage plays a large part in our contentiousness. If we hadn't been aggressive in pursuing our survival, no doubt we would not have lasted as long as we have.
But we have learned that we no longer need to fear the saber-toothed cat who wants to eat us. We already drove them and a lot of other animals and plants into extinction. The only threat to most people is...other people.
So, as Larry says, we band together and cooperate...more or less...to enhance our own safety and survival. First it was family groups, then tribes, then villages, towns, cities, nations.
But at heart we are still competitive, agressive organisms, so now we threaten each other en masse with weapons of mass destruction.
So now, we need to learn to cooperate on a global scale, and so far we ain't makin' much progress in that.
And that's the problem, because it IS our nature!
Before we blow ourselves up or poison our planet until it is uninhabitable.
Rick thinks that wars and conflict are a measure of our dynamic nature, and that may be true, but we need to redirect that dynamism to constructive rather than destructive ends.
I followed your logics in terms of a supposed Darwinian Evolutionary model just fine, right up until this point;
"Seeing this as desirable, and seeing that such an enhancement had been due to the hand of the hunter, the hunter may believe that he holds some special power over those who partook of the meat without joining the hunt. This can lead to illogical but intoxicating feelings such as arrogance, power, hubris, etc."
I see no reason to think of what that person did as "illogical" at all, withing that model. It is in fact distinctly logical, as I see that paradigm, to parley that hunting skill into enhanced status and reproductive opportunities. Many creatures reflect that logic, and some are also cooperative hunters. The logics don't really switch because the notions of arrogance or pride are introduced at that point, as I understand the matter anyway.
In the Darwinian model, such "emotions" would in fact serve rather well, to fulfill the drive for perpetuation of the individual's genome, and if the model were reality, then just the sort of deprivation of the weak, aged, and child bearing (of competitor's) would naturally occur, and succeed, rather well as the logos runs . . . But, I have never actually heard of any tribe that behaved in this manner, so I really don't see how that paradigm can be logically supported by the evidence I am aware of in this regard. I only know of tribes that honored the old ones, shared the food, and protected the weak and infirmed.
I believe it is logical to conclude that we as a species are not the product of "natural selection", and that hubris and self-centered behavior is not what we (as a kind of creature) actually are inclined toward, once we reach some level of maturity. The simple fact that so many decry that sort of thing, in virtually all societies, is testimony to another paradigm at work in us, I feel. Our emotions are complex, and of course the logics of selfishness can get the better of us at times, but what well adjusted adult does not see that as a failure to behave rightly?
I think sociopaths (by nature or conditioning) are responsible for the bulk of the disharmony and carnage that befalls our kind, and the normal folks catch both the brunt of their deficiencies, and blame for their acts.
So, strangely enough, I agree with your original position; It's not a mistake to "act naturally" . . but, I disagree that what we naturally are, is not conducive to something like "world peace". Just not yet, is all . .
The Earth is a wonderful place for us animals to live and as all animals seem to have learned the ability to love in an instinctive manner as the mothers always seem or at least most always do and the pop’s always go out to gather some food by killing some other animal or the vegetarians learn to eat the editable plants or vegetation by their mothers. It’s really been a very good place for Animals too live, eat, and to reproduce. We animals I feel will continue on in some manner or other. After all the Earth is and has been for the last few billion years a good place for animals to live and to eat others. A volcano here or there only makes the struggle for life a bit more difficult, but not the love.
As Michael Shermer showed conclusively in his book, "The Science of Good and Evil," cooperative strategies have increased the probability of survival for the groups I described above for tens of thousands of years. Organized religions played no part in this. In fact they contributed to the carnage by separating people into warring groups, resulting in religious wars (e.g., Crusades) that sometimes lasted hundreds of years, and resulted in vast suffering and oppression.
As I said before, man is by nature a contentious beast. We need to tame the beast in us.
Organized religions pretend to seek that goal, but in practice, they only seek political power and wealth. We can solve our problems without their "help."
It's just bigotry, as far as I can tell, not a logical conclusion.
No, that's low.
Communism alone killed over 200 million. WWII, which was certainly a secular war, killed 62 million.
But a few more than that have died in religious conflicts.
In fact, it's close to a billion.
Of course, all of those deaths didn't happen in the last hundred years.
But when you read the comments following the linked article, it becomes really fuzzy. Many wars had multiple causes, some religious, some ethnic some economic. It's impossible to separate them out and attribute them to purely secular or religious conflicts.
But it's pretty obvious that religious conflicts are contributing to much of the current mess in the world. Anybody with half a brain can see that.
I meant intentionally and personally extinguished, by authority and power, which was clearly not of a Religious nature. There is no reason to drift off into some horrible game of attributing blame to religious or non-religious people in particular, is all I'm agruing.
There have been a whole lot of societies in the past, that had a significant Religious component, and not many that didn't. Those recent movements which were clearly not Religious, demonstrated if nothing else, that non-religious causes and movements, would almost certainly not have prevented significant mayhem and destruction occurring, if one simply examines that blatant evidence logically, I say.
You ain't here asserting that Religions have done nasty things, you are here essentially asserting that without Religion, nasty things would rarely occur. That is not in evidence, sir.
Take the case of Genghis Khan, or the Roman Empire. Aggressive? Yes. Element of reason behind the threats of death or slavery? Yes. Inspired and directed by god on his throne in heaven, come on, we can do better than explain away man's acts by saying it was the will of a deity and not the direct result of man's development, all by our self.
I brought up the subject of religion only to point out that it was one of the many justifications man has invented to rationalize killing his fellow man.
And to answer John's accusation that "you are here essentially asserting that without Religion, nasty things would rarely occur."
What I said was that religious groups "contributed to the carnage by separating people into warring groups..."
And with that I will drop the subject of religion which, as you say, Rick, is really off the topic of this discussion. In fact, I apologize for allowing myself to be provoked into raising it.
Just wanted to remind myself to leave my guns in the locker, I guess.
Have a good day, gents.
Lasting peace will only happen when we transcend the Dualism (+/-) to the Truth of our Spiritual INterconnection and eternal commonality through the adoption of the BET (+=-), a Trinity Union of the Whole.
IMnsHO
So, rape is not a real minus in your eyes, Jer? Stealing, murder, lying, arson, and drunk driving are all neither good or bad? You figure if people stopped thinking and speaking of these sorts of things as bad (-), than there would be no wars?
IMnsHO
First, there is no god of any type out there. Therefore...
in reality, no wars have been religious in their true nature...
The guns were not fired by gods, but humans.
Any acts of mercy have also been carried out by humans without any need for heavenly intervention. Also all heinous acts were likewise carried out by humans, not their holy helper.
Well, I hesitate here, before clicking the "Submit" button, because I would rather converse on the realities of living on a vibrant, wild planet such as ours...but it's like magnetism. I just can't pull my finger away...
I totally agree. See my comment above which I wrote before reading this.
Those looking for a "Father Figure" will settle for the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God ... based upon their understanding of whether that meets their needs or not ... some, such as the Catholic, offer a form of the "Mother Figure" for others ... all of course from the exoteric concept more suitable to the objective egoic view ... the view that must be transcended before we get lasting peace ... and freedom from religion.
IMnsHO
BTW ... we are each and all "Spiritual Beings", the "problem" being that we have yet to realize it, for most.
Thank you for sharing with Gather's Best Writers and Artists.
And why would you even joke about your genes not surviving? Nice people succeed too!
Unless you're...oh, ha ha, you're leading me on!
I like to cooperate but if my survival is threatened, I'm likely not to be as nice.
Why would I joke about my genes not surviving? I wouldn't even have been born without the aid of modern medicine... (That makes a lot of us, of course.) And while I wasn't talking about niceness in my own case (more like being a mess), I could make an argument for excessive niceness not being what leads to having more surviving offspring than others (especially in those "evolutionary times"), and that's what the whole damn thing is based on, isn't it? I think your comment just above this one agrees.
But that leaves the question where the strange idea comes from that being nice and selfless and even sacrificing ourselves for others is a superior value. It's persistent--it's in all the world's cultures, as far as I can tell. Our ancient folk tales and mythologies are as full of this stuff as our more modern "high art" and pop culture. Why?
As for modern art and culture - the majority of it is high...on itself! But an example: a soldier covers a grenade to save his buddies. Is he just a sentimental fool? Is he acting on a pre-written script? Is the script on the basis of heroic tales from other wars? Is it some subconscious logic of numbers that shows a bottom line of more survivors having more chance of survival? Did he know what to do before the grenade rolled under his feet? What are the chances that everyone present would try to dive on the grenade? How many present would rather see the whole platoon take shrapnel rather than to die themselves? Is survival enhanced by having only a limited number of people brave or foolish enough to do this heroic, yet crazy thing?
Maybe altruism and heroism are naturally favored in this way. For the purposes of scientific calculations, what reason could there be for these traits to win out?
(aside to audience) Besides the grace of God, we already know that one, folks!
As is often the case, Bert B. made some illuminating ponder points.