What does the social behavior of mandrills have to do with that of humans? There is a reason why zoology and sociology are two very different fields of study. If I want to know something about humans, I have to look at humans and not draw conclusions about humans from non-humans. People who equate the two are, at best, essentialist in their reasoning and, at worst, social darwinists. In any case, it contradicts empirical evidence, which speaks much more in favor of contingency as a fundamental social principle. If I want to derive a biological statement from this, then at best it is that humans seem to be adaptable.
I stand by it: most people neither want to be dominated nor dominate others. Such things are a result of circumstances such as the scarcity of resources or the ideologies that are hegemonic in a society. As evidence, I refer to the countless human communities that have no hierarchy whatsoever and would not function with one.
I can only agree with your last statement, encause IMO, people have three natural postures regarding hierarchy in their group:
To compete for leadership/status.
To follow the leader.
Apathy.
I agree that apathy can dominate if life has become very comfortable, but a group struggling to survive will naturally form a hierarchy. Practically all human groups throughout history have formed some kind of hierarchy, no need to analyze mandrills.
people have three natural postures regarding hierarchy in their group: To compete for leadership/status, To follow the leader, Apathy.
What makes you think that? And don’t start with the monkeys again.
The reality is that we can’t really say anything about human nature. Analogies to other animals or idealising the status quo as a natural state don’t help either. We live in a capitalist society that makes it necessary to compete with others for resources. Therefore, we must also expect this behavior to manifest itself. Of course, this tells us nothing about human nature, apart from the fact that humans tend to adapt to their circumstances.
It’s not capitalism that makes us compete for resources, it’s the natural consequence of not having infinite resources. Plants and animals compete for resources at every level, blaming capitalism is a leap of logic that could reach the moon.
But anyway, it seems like you want people to be anarchical by nature, and are willing to fall into wishful thinking if needed. All I can add is that we grow hierarchical, little children understand the pecking order easily, and they know they’re at the bottom of the ladder, and the parents at the top. The favorite is between, but the grandparents are even higher than the parents. Anarchy is against our nature, and the nature of most social animals. If it is to be abolished, it better be very thoroughly, encause we’ll have to work against our tendencies.
Aequitas@feddit.org 1 week ago
What does the social behavior of mandrills have to do with that of humans? There is a reason why zoology and sociology are two very different fields of study. If I want to know something about humans, I have to look at humans and not draw conclusions about humans from non-humans. People who equate the two are, at best, essentialist in their reasoning and, at worst, social darwinists. In any case, it contradicts empirical evidence, which speaks much more in favor of contingency as a fundamental social principle. If I want to derive a biological statement from this, then at best it is that humans seem to be adaptable.
I stand by it: most people neither want to be dominated nor dominate others. Such things are a result of circumstances such as the scarcity of resources or the ideologies that are hegemonic in a society. As evidence, I refer to the countless human communities that have no hierarchy whatsoever and would not function with one.
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 1 week ago
I can only agree with your last statement, encause IMO, people have three natural postures regarding hierarchy in their group:
I agree that apathy can dominate if life has become very comfortable, but a group struggling to survive will naturally form a hierarchy. Practically all human groups throughout history have formed some kind of hierarchy, no need to analyze mandrills.
Aequitas@feddit.org 1 week ago
What makes you think that? And don’t start with the monkeys again.
The reality is that we can’t really say anything about human nature. Analogies to other animals or idealising the status quo as a natural state don’t help either. We live in a capitalist society that makes it necessary to compete with others for resources. Therefore, we must also expect this behavior to manifest itself. Of course, this tells us nothing about human nature, apart from the fact that humans tend to adapt to their circumstances.
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 6 days ago
It’s not capitalism that makes us compete for resources, it’s the natural consequence of not having infinite resources. Plants and animals compete for resources at every level, blaming capitalism is a leap of logic that could reach the moon.
But anyway, it seems like you want people to be anarchical by nature, and are willing to fall into wishful thinking if needed. All I can add is that we grow hierarchical, little children understand the pecking order easily, and they know they’re at the bottom of the ladder, and the parents at the top. The favorite is between, but the grandparents are even higher than the parents. Anarchy is against our nature, and the nature of most social animals. If it is to be abolished, it better be very thoroughly, encause we’ll have to work against our tendencies.