• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Thoughts on the Human Animal

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Animals are organisms that have three primary functions. Those would be, to survive, to consume, and to reproduce. Humans are a social animals, and thus have an extra function in addition to the other three, and that would be social order.

The Human animal, once created, lives to survive. To survive it must consume resources for energy. Much of what it consumes becomes, "waste" or that which is unusable to the Human animal. The Human animal must also reproduce so as to continue the species.

Individual human animals come together in order to increase their chances of survival, possess and protect areas of resources so they could be consumed later, and to increase opportunities for reproduction. However, since not all Human animals are created equal, a hierarchy forms in which those that possess favorable traits can obtain more resources and/or chances to reproduce than those who do not have those favorable traits. Thus two important constructs come into being, control and power.

There are ultimately only three ways in which to truly control Human animals. The first is to control the limited resources which they wish to consume. This isn't limited to just food, but also includes water, land, fossil fuels, etc. Unbeknown to a lot of people, freedom is a resource. It can be granted or taken away, and it is limited. One favored method of controlling those who don't comply with social order is to restrict their freedom. Another limited resource is education. Restricting and controlling this particular resource has countless implications. Inheritance demonstrates an alternative control of resources, where they can be passed down to an individual's offspring.

The second is to control reproduction. One of the earliest such methods for doing so was marriage, which allowed a male to ensure the paternity of his children by possessing females. Also, by restricting the pleasure people obtain from reproduction, people have been able to control how much sex people have. One method is the cutting away of the genitals as demonstrated even today in present Africa. Another method was to make people ashamed of the reproductive act, which has been a favorite method of religious institutions.

The final method of controlling humans has been to determine which survive. By killing off competing bands of humans, Human animals can greatly increased their chances for survival. The death penalty is another example of this form of control.

Those who have control, have power. Power ensures an individual's place in the social order. This is best demonstrated by the concept of a lineage, where power can be passed on to an individual's offspring.

The Human animal has developed a substantial superego in order to best maintain their spot in the social order by complying with those who have power over the limited resources. However, this superego often deludes the Human animal into the conception that ideals and beliefs have significant meaning. Ultimately, I propose the only things that have true meaning to the human animal are resources to be consumed, the opportunity to reproduce, and the necessities to survive to accomplish those goals.

Thoughts?
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
The final method of controlling humans has been to determine which survive. By killing off competing bands of humans, Human animals can greatly increased their chances for survival. The death penalty is another example of this form of control.

I'm not sure these three sentances should go together. In evolutionary terms, the method of ensuring group survival seems to be association to the "tribe", which allows one tribe to attack another tribe (see "Clash of nations" as an example). The instincts are such that as we become more unified, smaller factions are created until we are again divided into tribes. There are tons of experiments on "us vs them" which serve as examples... I don't think the death penalty (until you take it up to genocidal levels) really counts.

However, the fear of death is also there to ensure reproduction and so forth, so the threat of death can be used for control... but I they are two seperate things (the "competing bands of humans" vs "death penalty").
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I'm not sure these three sentances should go together. In evolutionary terms, the method of ensuring group survival seems to be association to the "tribe", which allows one tribe to attack another tribe (see "Clash of nations" as an example). The instincts are such that as we become more unified, smaller factions are created until we are again divided into tribes. There are tons of experiments on "us vs them" which serve as examples... I don't think the death penalty (until you take it up to genocidal levels) really counts.

However, the fear of death is also there to ensure reproduction and so forth, so the threat of death can be used for control... but I they are two seperate things (the "competing bands of humans" vs "death penalty").

I don't really see where you are contradicting what I said. I think killing off humans, whether it be through war, genocide, assassination, or just the threat of those, has been one of the greatest forms of control in human history because it challenges human survival. I don't see how the "association and fractioning of tribes" contradicts that idea.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I don't really see where you are contradicting what I said. I think killing off humans, whether it be through war, genocide, assassination, or just the threat of those, has been one of the greatest forms of control in human history because it challenges human survival. I don't see how the "association and fractioning of tribes" contradicts that idea.

If the only comment is that violence = control, I'd agree.

If you say that competing tribes (from an evolutionary "let me and my offspring live" POV) is part of the violence=control, I'm not sure I do agree. There are more complex factors involved in group warfare - at the tribal level, sending your kids off to die (or yourself) is a very poor way of ensuring your genes go on to live. This is a different dynamic than the death penalty that directly attacks your ability to survive.

I think that the need for tribal warfare has evolved through the need to secure as many resources as possible for you and your offspring... this means killing everyone other than those you identify with (evolution here meaning that those that don't eventually fall prey to those that do.)
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
If the only comment is that violence = control, I'd agree.

If you say that competing tribes (from an evolutionary "let me and my offspring live" POV) is part of the violence=control, I'm not sure I do agree. There are more complex factors involved in group warfare - at the tribal level, sending your kids off to die (or yourself) is a very poor way of ensuring your genes go on to live. This is a different dynamic than the death penalty that directly attacks your ability to survive.

I think that the need for tribal warfare has evolved through the need to secure as many resources as possible for you and your offspring... this means killing everyone other than those you identify with (evolution here meaning that those that don't eventually fall prey to those that do.)

Ok, that makes sense. It also seems to still go in accordance with my main idea that humans are controlled by limited resources, reproduction, and their survival. I just need to add, "and any combination of those functions" in order to allow for the complexity human society.

But I see what you are saying as far as the two not going so well together.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
It seems to me that you're citing the three Enneagram instinctual subtypes here. You're describing basic instincts common to humans.

The first is self-preservation, the second is sexual, and the third is social.

Does that make sense?
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
It seems to me that you're citing the three Enneagram instinctual subtypes here. You're describing basic instincts common to humans.

The first is self-preservation, the second is sexual, and the third is social.

Does that make sense?

It wasn't my intention, although the first two do seem to correlate with what I was suggesting as far as survival and reproduction. I don't know if consumption of natural resources is really comparable to the social instinct.
 

white

~dangerous curves ahead~
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
2,591
MBTI Type
ENTP
Hobbesian shades, Kiddo.

The Human animal has developed a substantial superego in order to best maintain their spot in the social order by complying with those who have power over the limited resources. However, this superego often deludes the Human animal into the conception that ideals and beliefs have significant meaning. Ultimately, I propose the only things that have true meaning to the human animal are resources to be consumed, the opportunity to reproduce, and the necessities to survive to accomplish those goals.

Thoughts?

*aelan fiddles with the INFJ rubik's reasoning*

So social order was derived to give life a purpose. The functions will exist without the social order. The social order cannot exist without the functions. Ergo true meaning, the functions' end is merely the perpetuation of the functions themselves. Social order is merely the mask, and ideals and beliefs, the paint on them.

But without that order, it'd be a free-for-all isn't it. With the order, you get controlled violence.

Is that what you really believe? Brutish, nasty, short? *ponders* Or is this just an exploration?

Because it sounds contrary to your barstool philosophy earlier. :) Gives little room for tolerance and kindness?
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
question- wouldn't wars and the death penalty be contrary to what is good for human evolution since they are usually quite good at killing the more fit members of society? :huh:

I once took a class that focused quite a bit on evolutionary social psychology! :) it was rather interesting. We discussed that phobias, religion, social order and other things of that sort all have evolutionary importance (phobias are usually of things that can hurt us, religion was a manner of thinking that would drive people to act in a more generous and community oriented manner and social order more easily facilitated human group living). Most aspects of human behavior- right down to cuddling after sex, were linked back to evolutionary purposes. :laugh:

That's just what this made me think of! :yes:
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Is that what you really believe? Brutish, nasty, short? *ponders* Or is this just an exploration?

Because it sounds contrary to your barstool philosophy earlier. :) Gives little room for tolerance and kindness?

Humans are a living paradox. On one end they are animalistic, and driven by behaviors that are instinctual and impulsive. They wish to consume to no end. On the other end they are humanistic, and endowed with shame and empathy that sometimes guides them towards actions that seem to directly oppose their animal nature. It's as if they wish to protect and nurture this world. The way those drives conflict with each other that is reminiscent of yin and yang, id and superego, or evil and good, is absolutely fascinating to me. That conflict seems to be the very essence of what it means to be human.

Spirituality and philosophy seem to be the closest means of understanding our place in the world so we can achieve that goal. Ultimately, I'm trying to understand both sides to our nature. In other words, the two sides of the single coin that is us. I'm not trying to be contrary, only understand why we are driven to be who we are despite being who we are. Does that make sense?

question- wouldn't wars and the death penalty be contrary to what is good for human evolution since they are usually quite good at killing the more fit members of society? :huh::

That is what ptg said. Although the death penalty would actually be evolution in progress since we are removing the genes that are dangerous to our society. Whereas war is contradictory to evolution since we are sending our best off to die. It is definitely some shortsightedness on my part but the general idea still stands.

You do bring up a good question though. Why is it evolutionarily beneficial for man to be conflicted with himself? Why are we each seeking a balance between our biology and sociology that doesn't destroy our fragile psychology? :D
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
not exactly what pt said! :cry:

*whatever slinks off to hide somewhere- she's not quite awake enough to deal with being questioned at the moment*

Also, just remembered- interesting fact on the fittest dying in wars and such- it's apparently common in some groups of Great Apes for the high ranking males to go into fights that they know that they will lose in order to protect the rest of the group. Though this might not seem like a good idea outwardly for the wellbeing of the primate group, it is thought that by doing so the offspring of the high ranking males (which pretty much = all of the primate group's young) have an increased chance at surviving and passing on thier genes! :)

this makes me wonder- should soldiers be man-sluts then? :huh:
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
That is what ptg said. Although the death penalty would actually be evolution in progress since we are removing the genes that are dangerous to our society. Whereas war is contradictory to evolution since we are sending our best off to die. It is definitely some shortsightedness on my part but the general idea still stands.

War isn't counter-productive to evolution, it's just a different form of genetic trimming. The thing to keep in mind is that evolution is utterly blind. There is no good or bad, only change - and change can include extinction. From an evolutionary point of view, extinction is good... or at least, not-bad. It's like taking a whole bunch of dice and wanting 6s. You don't complain about those that don't come up "6" - that's the evolutionary dead end.

War, or the human propensity towards war, is the same as most animals - resource based. If you have resources to support 100 people ("genes"), and another group of "genes" with the same amount of resources, the ideal situation is for one group of genes to lose all but the minimum amount to reproduce - thus being able to support one group of 200 genes. "Evolution" rewards those that have the largest gene pool, hence that group of 200, when it splits into two 100 groups and repeats the same trials, contains the genes of those that have an emphasis on war and securing resources. Thus, we are all primed for doing exactly that - equality/fairness, measurement of peers, social level and the whole "them vs us" stuff. Each are "blind" - they don't serve a purpose, exactly, they are simply the traits that "worked" to bring us where we are today.

What % of Europeans came from the upper class 500/1000 years ago? It's shocking to discover how low the survival rate for the lower class was - it's the same principle. Our ancestors were the ones that used force to take resources... Now those same problems might invoke nuclear war (etc) and send us to extinction - thus, this was an evolutionary dead end. "Oh well", try again - roll the dice and hope 5s work out better.

However, I think you are correct in your original post, or at least the general view makes sense. We are controlled by our evolution, our evolution is heavily influenced by resources (macro) and survival (to reproduce)(micro). The missing part is that humans are "machines" that are designed with triggers that support both, even if they contradict each other. What is bad for the individual can be good for the group (ie: I will sacrifice myself so that my tribe/children can eat.)
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Good post, Kiddo.

I don't know if you were implying that only the human animal has social hierarchies, but I assume you weren't. Other animals have them too.

With regard to controlling humans... hm. I like where you're going, except I would expand the concept of controlling survival. Survival is a product of conserving resources (food, energy) and avoiding threats (biological, physical). We don't need our conscious minds to do that because we have biological mechanisms, namely, pain and pleasure. Therefore, by controlling pain and pleasure ("comfort"), you control people. Comfort is also the mechanism that ensures reproduction, so controlling comfort gives power. This is why people are willing to trade money for drugs, why self-help gurus like Dr. Phil are filthy rich, why nuclear weapons dictate global dynamics, etc. They all prey on fear and tickle our pleasure, which is really the same thing, one just being an absence of the other.

Ever read the Naked Ape or Peoplewatching by Desmond Morris? HIGHLY recommended, even though you should read Naked Ape critically. It's my favorite book and right in line with your thought process, just expanded.

Edit: If you look hard enough, you'll find that nothing is ever counter-evolution. Survival of the fittest is like the law of conservation of energy (albeit circular, since the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are the fittest); you can't violate it. Even when you try, you inevitably succumb to it.
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
Also, just remembered- interesting fact on the fittest dying in wars and such- it's apparently common in some groups of Great Apes for the high ranking males to go into fights that they know that they will lose in order to protect the rest of the group. Though this might not seem like a good idea outwardly for the wellbeing of the primate group, it is thought that by doing so the offspring of the high ranking males (which pretty much = all of the primate group's young) have an increased chance at surviving and passing on thier genes! :)

I think this speaks to the fact that humans couldn't and didn't evolve purely based on selfinterest and every primate for themselves. Civilization from definition only evolved out of a high degree of cooperation. Cooperation = survival.

You can break it down to it always points to your genes or your children somehow being passed on/surviving, but I like to think at least at this stage of human evolution, we have compassion and intelligence and are capable of making moral choices.

That's what separates humanity from (other) animals.

I get annoyed when people cite animal instinct or jungle rules to dictate social policy that ethically or morally you would call reprehensible or unfair. Do you want to run naked through the wilderness eating raw meat like the animals you cite? Go ahead you primitivist, but we call it 'humanity' for a reason.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I get annoyed when people cite animal instinct or jungle rules to dictate social policy that ethically or morally you would call reprehensible or unfair. Do you want to run naked through the wilderness eating raw meat like the animals you cite? Go ahead you primitivist, but we call it 'humanity' for a reason.

Well said. This is what I argue about all the time... people saying, "let everything come out, and assume all consequences are deserved," while I say, "let's consider the consequences and choose the action that has the fewest negative ones and/or the most positive ones."
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Therefore, by controlling pain and pleasure ("comfort"), you control people.

You are right, that does sound much more accurate. Control resources, reproduction, and comfort and you ultimately control human beings.

Also, just remembered- interesting fact on the fittest dying in wars and such- it's apparently common in some groups of Great Apes for the high ranking males to go into fights that they know that they will lose in order to protect the rest of the group. Though this might not seem like a good idea outwardly for the wellbeing of the primate group, it is thought that by doing so the offspring of the high ranking males (which pretty much = all of the primate group's young) have an increased chance at surviving and passing on thier genes! :)

I've read about other such "moral" acts before. There was that one story where the chimp jumped into the river to save his friend and the scientists were speculating on his motives. Just the other night I was watching Meerkat Manor. One pack of Meerkat's wondered into another pack's territory, and when they were challenged they ran off leaving behind one of their cubs. Apparently, Meerkat's will normally kill the offspring of other packs, but they chose to adopt the cub instead, and even protected it and carried it along. What motive could possess them to do such a thing so out of the ordinary from their normal behavior?

I was actually reading about human motives the other day. Freud said the only two true motives are the sex urge and the desire to be great. I think many of these "moral" actions could probably be linked to that "desire to be great." We all have the inherent desire to be loved, respected, acknowledged, and appreciated. Often we would go to extraordinary lengths to attain this "greatness." Where does that desire come from?

It obviously has an evolutionary benefit since it hasn't been weeded out of us. Perhaps it increases the likelihood that we will get more resources, or improve our chances of reproducing, or will generally ensure a more comfortable place in our society. It's a very interesting concept and I believe it was even defined as the need for "Love and belonging," by Maslow. Maybe it isn't even the desire for greatness, but rather, a need for identity in the group so as to improve our chances in life.



I think this speaks to the fact that humans couldn't and didn't evolve purely based on selfinterest and every primate for themselves. Civilization from definition only evolved out of a high degree of cooperation. Cooperation = survival.

I disagree, I think it's more like this.

Cooperation = better ability to compete = survival.

Thus, self interest is still the primary motivator for cooperation. If one could not better compete by cooperating, then they would not cooperate.

CzeCze said:
You can break it down to it always points to your genes or your children somehow being passed on/surviving, but I like to think at least at this stage of human evolution, we have compassion and intelligence and are capable of making moral choices.

That's what separates humanity from (other) animals.

As has been said before, other animals exhibit moral behavior. Humans don't have a monopoly on compassion and intelligence. I actually have yet to see a major difference between humans and animals.

CzeCze said:
I get annoyed when people cite animal instinct or jungle rules to dictate social policy that ethically or morally you would call reprehensible or unfair. Do you want to run naked through the wilderness eating raw meat like the animals you cite? Go ahead you primitivist, but we call it 'humanity' for a reason.

Alternatively, such people could be called realists. They recognize that humans aren't much different than animals and will primarily act in their own self interest. They look for policies that would seem most likely to work under that premise. For example, people often argue that abstaining from sex until marriage is a moral behavior and argue that it should be the only thing that is taught in schools. Many would even see having sex before marriage as "morally reprehensible." However, realists recognize that teenagers will choose to have sex if they want to because they will act in their own self interest regardless of what others want. Realists will also point out how counterproductive it is to deny young people the education to practice sex safely and how it is "ethically unfair".

This particular argument has always intrigued me. On one end you have those who are trying to be better than animals by sticking to "morals" (traditional behaviors) regardless of how "unfair" they may be. On the other end you have those who are trying to exist as practically in line with nature as possible by sticking to "ethics" (principle of living) regardless of how "reprehensible" they may be. It seems to be another contradiction.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Cooperation = better ability to compete = survival.

I agre with everything posted, but just wanted to point out that, in evolutionary terms, it should be generalised to

Cooperation = better ability to reproduce = survival
or
Cooperation = better survivability = survival

The distinction is important because it isn't just a tool for competition - if, for example, one gene pool that cooperates can support more children (say, by raising children in groups, such as tribal parenting), then they will reproduce and spread faster than a competitive group. This is also true when there are no competitions between gene pools (for example, a cooperative society can survive more natural disasters).

However, there is no morality behind cooperation or competition. Humans are the sum of the evolutionary pressures behind both and we use both all the time. There is healthy competition, or rather, required competition... and there is unhealthy competition... the same goes for cooperation. There is no safety net, no "moral" imperative in nature. If cooperation, say via social welfare, causes an evolutionary dead end through allowing stratification of genes without pruning, we will cooperate ourselves out of existance (presuming an outside pressure, like an uncooperative genepool/society). Likewise with competition.

We simply don't know the end effect of any of these influences. The answer to almost any question "why do we do this" is a wave of a hand "Because we are programmed to"... Presuming active self-interest isn't the best course of action... we are programmed for a limited amount of self interest, since that gets us resources and children... but we are also programmed with a limited sense of group identity and so forth.

"Morality", such as the protection of children and so forth, all stem from those pressures... Every human system does. A moral choice is a choice that is line with the evolutionary needs we have been imprimted with. In that sense, we are no different than animals. The only argument here is the argument of awareness, but even this is a matter of degree. It's a common occurance to find out that another "just human" behaviour is found in the wild.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Very good points. Perhaps the only difference between humans and other animals is that our behaviors have evolved to become so diverse. We demonstrate more ecological, psychological, and social behaviors than any other living creature on the planet. We've even developed systems to control the evolution of these behaviors. Wouldn't that be a strange twist for all the bigots out there in the world? What if what makes us human is our diversity?
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Very good points. Perhaps the only difference between humans and other animals is that our behaviors have evolved to become so diverse. We demonstrate more ecological, psychological, and social behaviors than any other living creature on the planet. We've even developed systems to control the evolution of these behaviors. Wouldn't that be a strange twist for all the bigots out there in the world? What if what makes us human is our diversity?

IMO, what really happened is that a certain strain of genes and a certain environment pushed humans down the +awareness (compared to +instincts) and +tools (ie: tune environment, not ourselves). These paths both encourage diversity (ie: a tool can change on the situation, but the human is not bound to the normal rules of natural selection... ie: awareness allows an immediate adaptive way of dealing with the environment)...

So, diversity (in the sense we are using, not in the pure "genetically diverse", just a lack of pruning) is the outcome of the methods of survival. In a way, it is what makes us human (although I'd say what makes us human leads to diversity). This is gaining speed, regardless of what we may think - despite the "conflict" nature of humans, the nation states, tribalism and so forth, cultures and gene groups are mixing increasingly peacefully.
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
I disagree, I think it's more like this.

Cooperation = better ability to compete = survival.

Thus, self interest is still the primary motivator for cooperation. If one could not better compete by cooperating, then they would not cooperate.

Hmm, aren't you contradicting yourself and the example you just gave about 'moral group behavior' in a group of meerkats? It's hard to have conversations about 'morality' and 'ethics' versus 'animal instinct' or 'survival instincts' if your definitions of such keep changing.


As has been said before, other animals exhibit moral behavior. Humans don't have a monopoly on compassion and intelligence. I actually have yet to see a major difference between humans and animals.

All animals? I'll bet the animals that you can cite as having 'human like' behavior" i.e. compassions etc. are mammals and 9/10 are some sort of primate.

And you have to uniformly interpret actions -- either the actions of a living thing to 'help' or 'rescue' a pack member/friend in humans or animals is an example of moral or ethical behavior or else it's all purely self-preservational and self-interest.

You can't cite the same instance of an animal/human 'saving' a non-relative and call it animal instinct for one and moral for another. Or are you?

And sure, there are animals that will 'go to bat' for one another, like jump into altercations, scare off predators, or try to rescue one another. But if you wanted to get all cynical survivalist about it, you could say any kind of overture of this manner is a form of self-preservation.


This particular argument has always intrigued me. On one end you have those who are trying to be better than animals by sticking to "morals" (traditional behaviors) regardless of how "unfair" they may be. On the other end you have those who are trying to exist as practically in line with nature as possible by sticking to "ethics" (principle of living) regardless of how "reprehensible" they may be. It seems to be another contradiction.

I skipped a lot of posts here. Did you already define morality and ethics and the difference between the two? And they are both highly subjective and influenced by culture and society.

My two cents again is that I'm not really into philosophizing about humanity vs. nature, how humans are just bipedal animals who learned the wonders of hygiene, etc.

I guess for me this kind of philosophizing doesn't have much point for me. I often seen it applied in a political context, or rather an apolitical context that is far removed from any actual application to real world events.

Or people get so caught up with really a purely philosophical conversation instead of questioning the dynamics and psychology of why 'tragedies' happen -- and try to solve them or prevent them.

This may not be your intention but the whole 'people are animals' line is tied into the idea that either we will never truly understand humanity, therefore are unable to pass judgement on something we don't understand. Or the flip opposite, people are nothing more than animal instincts, therefore letting people off the hook for any kind of socially deemed transgression. Basically, people can't help themselves. I also often see it applied to war/criminals, serial killers, etc.

I guess I'm not very articulate today, but this pisses me off to no end Especially in the context of community and political organizing or just engaging with society, I feel like there are so many naysayers and otherwise apathetic people who let horrible stuff happen with this detached or even cynical "humans are just animals" aka "that's just the way things are".

I just want to shake these people by the shoulders and say, "Snap out of it! You live HERE in the REAL WORLD. People have BRAINS, we have an economy based on COMMERCE and LABOR and MONEY. We have LANGUAGE and HIGHER FUNCTIONING INTELLIGENCE. Get over it and please join us in the 21st century."

Okay, okay, I'm in a cranky mood. And this rant isn't directed at the OP, but these kind of arguments or focus on the philosophical nature of humanity really does remind me of how they are so often related (IMHO) to apathy, cynicism, and really people who knowingly or not, get in the way of engaged citizens who are trying to work with the practical tools in society -- laws, legislature, electoral government, lobbying, etc. to IMPROVE society ergo humanity ergo help use rise further from pure base animal instincts and simplified excuses.

I think the point of civilization is to rise out of any need or justification to live just like animals.
 
Top