A Perfectly Legitimate Question?

[Alan B'Stard MP]

What, 99.9% of our genes are monkey?

50% odd is cabbage apparently.

[scepticus]

Also , you have made several errors in your pub-psychology description of human and other primate behaviour.

ouch. OK, lets see what bearing these errors have on the basic premise..

In fact, in primitive societies, women, look after the kids, cook, clean and gather. Men tend to be there primarily to protect and hunt and that's it.

still a division of labour. Is it also true that when hunting say a mammoth, the hunters would adopt specific tactical roles, some tracking, some chasing, some distracting, some stabbing, some specialising in the final kill etc?

Secondly, there a a number of primate species, including the one that is most closely related to us (bonobos) where the females are the tribe leaders.

a quick search reveals that bonobo society is based on casual 'social' sex (including casual homosexuality) and this is the reason why the male/female baalnce is more equal. I'm all for all that, but why do you think humans don't have a similar female dominance?

in any case there is still a hierarchy.

Thirdly, whilst it is true that humans and apes are social creatures and so naturally form hierarchical groups, these hierarchies tend to be stable in groups of only around a few dozen at most.

sure, therein lies the difference between humans and monkeys. what then is the difference that allows humans by co-ercion to form much larger groupings that can be stable for some time when these monkey tribes simply don't bother to ever do that.

[Guest Steve Cook]

humans only pick leaders who have demonstrated the ability to impose themselves. Again, this recognition feature is biologically programmed. Basically, the monkeys watch the big monkeys fight, then mentally appoint the winner, because they understand the signals of submission.

evolution is cobblers?

possible but very difficult, because we aim to curb our sub-conscious impulses.

fair point. However statistically most will fail to defeat their programming. Hence herding, leadership recognition and so on are statistically certain to emerge.

you may have defeated your programming, but I suspect there is some specific neurological reason that you have been able to do this. Also, autists, sociopaths and so on tend to not have this herding and leadership recognition function built in so they can get round it much more easily than the standard issue human can.

if there is something about your brain which allows you to easily escape that programming then I can see why you think it should be easy for everyone else too.

I recognise that this programming exists and that most people can't beat it. Thus until we bio-engineer it out of ourselves we'll need to recognise the inevitability of division of labour and social hierarchy.

Ofc this is a major philosophical problem for libertarians, which is why they employ creationist-like pseudo science arguments to argue that individualism is our natural state, when it clearly isn't.

Again, you are taking a specific instinctive behavioural tendency naturally expressed in a particular context and have ludicrously abstracted it to explain the basis of civilisations. It is merely one instinctive mechanism among many that has been utilised by a few ruthless buggers. The consequence has, indeed, been civilisation and it is, of course, true that without that instinct being available to be subverted in the first place, it would have proved much harder for the few to have subjugated the many. However, there are as many and more aspects of civlisiation and the rule of the state that run counter to basic human instincts as there are that run parallel.

You have merely decided to pick a particular one and cite it as the basis of civilisation.

Arrant, ignorant nonsense.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Guest Steve Cook]

ouch. OK, lets see what bearing these errors have on the basic premise..

still a division of labour. Is it also true that when hunting say a mammoth, the hunters would adopt specific tactical roles, some tracking, some chasing, some distracting, some stabbing, some specialising in the final kill etc?

a quick search reveals that bonobo society is based on casual 'social' sex (including casual homosexuality) and this is the reason why the male/female baalnce is more equal. I'm all for all that, but why do you think humans don't have a similar female dominance?

in any case there is still a hierarchy.

sure, therein lies the difference between humans and monkeys. what then is the difference that allows humans by co-ercion to form much larger groupings that can be stable for some time when these monkey tribes simply don't bother to ever do that.

They aren't clever enoough to amass surpluses

[Alan B'Stard MP]

They aren't clever enoough to amass surpluses

Squirrels?

[Guest Steve Cook]

Squirrels?

They are not social. This means that whilst they are not averse to stealing off one another, they lack the social skills to organise and dominate wholesale sections of their own species.

Take another species that both amasses surpluses and is social. Namely ants. Unsurprisingly, their organisational structure is illustrative of the the few subjugating the many.

However, before scepticus get's all excited with himself, it's worth pointing out that the subjugation wittnessed in the ants is entirely hard-wired now after millions of years of evolution. Also, it took cloning to ensure any stability in it. What we are wittnessing in humans is a culturally evolved subjugation that has been built on top of instincts over only the last few thousand years

The trigger was the emergence of surpluses.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Alan B'Stard MP]

They are not social

You sure?

I used to feed the pair outside my house.

Are squirrels clever because they amass surplus?

Edited June 30, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP

[Alan B'Stard MP]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/squirrel-social-network.html

[scepticus]

Squirrels?

Food-storing behavior in captive squirrel monkeys

http://www.springerlink.com/content/112664v512160774/

the last few sentences of the introduction describe our banking system rather well I would say.

[scepticus]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/squirrel-social-network.html

and:

"Dominance hierarchies are known in sciurid society, with pecking orders observed in both Reds and Greys. In Red squirrels, inter- and intrasexual dominance has been recorded; males are not necessarily dominant to females. Dominance or subordination seems to be based on a combination of size and age; chieftain animals are typically larger, older and frequently hold larger home ranges than subservient individuals."

http://www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/squirrels.html#behaviour

[Guest Steve Cook]

You sure?

I used to feed the pair outside my house.

Are squirrels clever because they amass surplus?

A mating pair does not equate to being social in the technical sense. Crocodiles mate, but I can assure you they are not very sociable.

You don't necesarily need to be clever to amass surpluses. It depends on the nature of the surplus and how complicated the behaviour required to amass it needs to be.

[Guest Steve Cook]

and:

"Dominance hierarchies are known in sciurid society, with pecking orders observed in both Reds and Greys. In Red squirrels, inter- and intrasexual dominance has been recorded; males are not necessarily dominant to females. Dominance or subordination seems to be based on a combination of size and age; chieftain animals are typically larger, older and frequently hold larger home ranges than subservient individuals."

http://www.wildlifeo....html#behaviour

Ok, I'll retract the squirrels example as they do exhibit cetain social traits

[Alan B'Stard MP]

A mating pair does not equate to being social in the technical sense. Crocodiles mate, but I can assure you they are not very sociable.

You don't necesarily need to be clever to amass surpluses. It depends on the nature of the surplus and how complicated the behaviour required to amass it needs to be.

Feb. 21, 2008 -- The squirrel world has its own Kevin Bacon -- a socially well-connected individual dubbed Mercedes by the scientist who studies him.

The major difference between human and squirrel social networks is that people, as the conventional wisdom goes, appear to be "separated" by five or six degrees. For squirrels, it takes only three connections for one member of a population to get to any other.

"It's the same thing," said Theodore Manno, a biologist at Auburn University in Alabama. "Squirrels with many connections tend to befriend squirrels that are like them; squirrels without many connections tend to befriend squirrels like them as well."

"Isn't that the same as the popular crowd going to each other's Facebooks and the skater kids doing the same?" he asked.

The discovery that squirrels have social networks not only illustrates the complexities of animal behavior, but also says something about the properties shared by all networks.

I think it goes beyond mating pairs.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP

[Guest Steve Cook]

Food-storing behavior in captive squirrel monkeys

http://www.springerl...2664v512160774/

the last few sentences of the introduction describe our banking system rather well I would say.

Are you serious?...

[scepticus]

The trigger was the emergence of surpluses.

you might be interested in this then:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2802644

it suggests a study of various hunter gather groups shows markedly different levels of egalitarianism. The most egalitarian are found to be those which immediately consume and distribute food. The least egalitarian are those that exhibit a significant delayed return. That is, saving,

So according to this, what matters is not existence of a surplus above what is needed, but the delayed consumption of that. Saving.

So if saving is what leads to civilisation and thence to subjugation, then saving is the root of all evil.

[edit: really excited now...]

[scepticus]

Are you serious?...

steve, I'm always serious.

[Guest Steve Cook]

you might be interested in this then:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2802644

it suggests a study of various hunter gather groups shows markedly different levels of egalitarianism. The most egalitarian are found to be those which immediately consume and distribute food. The least egalitarian are those that exhibit a significant delayed return. That is, saving,

So according to this, what matters is not existence of a surplus above what is needed, but the delayed consumption of that. Saving.

So if saving is what leads to civilisation and thence to subjugation, then saving is the root of all evil.

[edit: really excited now...]

Saving is the temporal expression of a surplus.....

And yes, the emergence of surpluses are the point at which it all went it bit tits up.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Alan B'Stard MP]

you might be interested in this then:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2802644

it suggests a study of various hunter gather groups shows markedly different levels of egalitarianism. The most egalitarian are found to be those which immediately consume and distribute food. The least egalitarian are those that exhibit a significant delayed return. That is, saving,

So according to this, what matters is not existence of a surplus above what is needed, but the delayed consumption of that. Saving.

So if saving is what leads to civilisation and thence to subjugation, then saving is the root of all evil.

[edit: really excited now...]

Makes sense. A belly can only hold so much perishable food. Might as well pass it around and hold a surplus of brownie points.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP

[Guest Steve Cook]

Makes sense. A belly can only hold so much perishable food. Might as well pass it around and hold a surplus of brownie points.

To the above extent, I would add a futher qualification. The subjugation of the few by the many in human civilisations arguably required the following factors:

A high level of intelligence

The invention of farming

The emergence of surpluses

A social instinct that could be hijacked alongside the use of straightforward force

I put the above conjectures up for discussion and reserve the right to drop or modify any of them

Edited June 30, 2010 by Steve Cook

[scepticus]

Saving is the temporal expression of a surplus.....

And yes, the emergence of surpluses are the point at which it all went it bit tits up.

OK lets agree on that. I wouldn't say it all went tits up though. Life expectancy is now significantly increased since the first surpluses emerged.

Perhaps the right conclusion is that stored surpluses and division of labour are a deal with the devil, the devil being the worst behavioural traits that the human mind has evolved.

Division of labour here is important when you add the temporal dimension to surpluses. In fact I suggest the only way a surplus can be successfully stored over time is via division and organisation of labour, and one of those specialists is a manager.

[scepticus]

To the above extent, I would add a futher qualification. The subjugation of the few by the many in human civilisations arguably required the following factors:

A high level of intelligence

The invention of farming

The emergence of surpluses

A social instinct that could be hijacked alongside the use of straightforward force

I put the above conjectures up for discussion and reserve the right to drop or modify any of them

drop farming. hunter-gathers stored surplus inter-temporally.

Intelligence is probably required to dominate multiple small tribe groups.

yes to the rest

so, is saving the root of all evil steve? If so, you should put that in your sig.

[Guest Steve Cook]

OK lets agree on that. I wouldn't say it all went tits up though. Life expectancy is now significantly increased since the first surpluses emerged.

Perhaps the right conclusion is that stored surpluses and division of labour are a deal with the devil, the devil being the worst behavioural traits that the human mind has evolved.

Division of labour here is important when you add the temporal dimension to surpluses. In fact I suggest the only way a surplus can be successfully stored over time is via division and organisation of labour, and one of those specialists is a manager.

Firstly, I would be interested to know what the life expectancy of humans is right now when averaged across all humans. Not just the ones who are benefitting the most from our little global civilisational arranngement.

Secondly, the specialist manager you refer to is only required when a surplus is so large and when it's usage is anything other than direct. In other words, when it is not to be directly utilised by the people who produced it.

Another after-the-fact justification it sounds like to me sceppy

Edited June 30, 2010 by Steve Cook

[scepticus]

Firstly, I would be interested to know what the life expectancy of humans is right now when averaged across all humans. Not just the ones who are benefitting the most from our little global civilisational arranngement.

perhaps one of the others reading the thread but not posting can go and fetch that data. Share the workload so to speak. Brownie points will be awarded that can be spent at some future date on items as yet unspecified.

Secondly, the specialist manager you refer to is only required when a surplus is so large and when it's usage is anything other than direct. In other words, when it is not to be directly utilised by the people who produced it.

any inter-temporally transported surplus is by definition not used directly, and accordnig to the above requires managers. Actually it requires also:

workers (employing division of labour) to stock the cache.

managers to say who gets what when and make the rules.

guards to guard the cache from workers and managers and external threats and enforce the rules.

Another after-the-fact justification it sounds like to me sceppy

lets be nice shall we and continue with our nascent General Theory of Deferred Consumption.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

To the above extent, I would add a futher qualification. The subjugation of the few by the many in human civilisations arguably required the following factors:

A high level of intelligence

The invention of farming

The emergence of surpluses

A social instinct that could be hijacked alongside the use of straightforward force

I put the above conjectures up for discussion and reserve the right to drop or modify any of them

Subjugation lasts while the surplus lasts and is deemed desirable.

Humans are good are producing persistent surpluses which is why they might be persistently subjugated.

Two dogs fighting over a bowl of pedigree chum also fits this premise nicely. One is invariably subjugated until the other is sated.

The premise requires neither intelligence, farming or a social instinct. Hell a dog would fight anything for a bowl of chum - even the dishwasher.

Human propensity for material status might lead it to acquire more surplus that it really needs. Mating rights.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP

[Guest Steve Cook]

drop farming. hunter-gathers stored surplus inter-temporally.

Intelligence is probably required to dominate multiple small tribe groups.

yes to the rest

so, is saving the root of all evil steve? If so, you should put that in your sig.

Whilst hutner gatherers stored some supluses, they were of an order of magnitude lower than even the earliest farmers. i don;'t think you can go anywher with that line of argument.

As for supluses being the root of all evil. Yes, I would guess that they are. The trouble is, unless we un-invent farming and the entire history of civilisation that followed it, we are stuck with it.

Injin is right that there are a few ruthless bastards that make life shit for the majority, He is wrong in that he thinks that all we have to do is say "no". You are right in that the way things are, becomes a very likely cultural consequence of the existence of surpluses and and the human social instinct. You're worng in that you don't realise that the use of force is an even more necessary ingredient. You are horribly wrong in that you believe that the state can be tamed for anything other than a brief interlude.

Look at the history of civilisation Scpeticus. This "golden" age of plenty is nothing more than a brief abberation from the norm

Given the resource contraints coming down the pipe, the future is almost certainly going to be a re-run of the past.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Steve Cook