Flock trends

Philosophical ramblings



It's very easy to make masses of people to follow "leaders", the alpha males. Just give people an illusion that their life would be better if they would do what the leaders say, and they would follow without using reason to understand the costs of the path they would have to take.

People obey, it's their nature. The only way individuals can change this, is by getting out of the flock, by separating their reasoning processes from the monopolistic, average instincts of the flock; note that the flock doesn't think, it has instincts, but not reasoning.

Also see Behind the fog.

The evolutionary approach to morality emphasizes the social nature of moral intuition.

>>> We don't just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions.

These are evolutionary characteristics which represent diversity; they represent the opposed side of individualism, independence, self-interest.

>>> We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.

We are the descendents of microbes, bees and apes. (Yes, I know, we're not technically descendents of microbes and bees.)

>>> The first nice thing about this evolutionary approach to morality is that it emphasizes the social nature of moral intuition.

The only thing it emphasizes is that diversity is the basis of survival and that life doesn't care and doesn't know how to survive. Life just uses all available means to do so.

>>> People link themselves together into communities and networks of mutual influence.

So do microbes, bees and apes. I find little pride in the mental abilities and in the way of life of such ancestors, so there is no point in using warm-fuzzy-feeling-inducing words in order to provide to the implied concepts a (self-sustaining) circular reasoning.

>>> The second nice thing is that it entails a warmer view of human nature.

Actually it shows the strength of the survival instinct of the species and its disregard for individuals. Survival of the species is the only thing that matters (to the large form of life called species). Diversity gives it the highest probability of staying alive.

I don't owe my life to the flock, but to over one billion years of evolution (/ natural selection), to the billions of species which didn't survive, or, in a single word, to Diversity, to me and you (or any other two individuals) being (fundamentally) different.

>>> Evolution is always about competition

Evolution is always about survival.

>>> Competition among groups has turned us into pretty cooperative, empathetic and altruistic creatures at least within our families, groups and sometimes nations.

Competition didn't turn any create into anything. The survival instinct determined life to choose all possible ways to live in order to maximize its chances of survival.

>>> The third nice thing is that it explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice. Moral intuitions have primacy but they are not dictators.

That's because the survival of the species has priority (due to its size, proven in time) over the survival of individuals. As such, those evolutionary characteristics which bind the individuals of a species have "selected themselves" as relevant.

In other words, cooperation has proven itself to be a relevant (the human species being the only one whose point of view is relevant here) component for the survival of various species (proven by the fact that the cooperation of microbes, bees and apes has gotten us so far).

How's that for cold, emotionless reasoning born in the mind of an individual who has seen what the survival instinct of a species does in order to make the many individuals blindly think and feel warm-fuzzy feelings about their cooperation redefined and held high as The moral hallmark to follow cheerfully?!

Humans are rational beings.

>>> Humans are rational beings. The man who did most to banish reason from the social atmosphere in America was Sigmund Freud.

Rational relative to what? Apes, roaches, bacteria, homo erectus, neandertals, socialists, fascists, Marx, Lenin, Newton, Einstein, Mises, Rothbard? Or perhaps relative to humanoids who are so evolved that they just know with every cell of their brain that they have no right over other humans?

You want to fight crime? Do it with your own resources! In such a case, does the so called rationality count any more? Because if you can't force others to obey you, since you don't have the necessary resources, your anti-crime line of reasoning doesn't count to those who don't obey you.

Introducing rationality in the argument is a flawed line of reasoning because it assumes that all humans are made equal, that is, they have the same type and level of reasoning, and that life experience doesn't count in shaping their reasoning.

>>> What is the supposed proof that man is not rational?

How do you conduct a scientific experiment to show this? I know that an ape is rationally inferior to me, I know that humans are driven by instincts and that rationality is a pass time hobby, that is, in the presence of efficiency on an evolutionary scale which produces faster the required survival resources, man does something that other species don't: thinks beyond the immediate survival needs.

What is the supposed scientific proof that a socialist or a fascist is not rational?

Each animal, humans included, are rational relative to their nature. You can't change the nature of a roach and you can't change the nature of a socialist. Rationality has nothing to do with it. Each is built differently and it's the very reason why life exists: diversity, different solutions to the same problem. Life doesn't care about morality, it just wants to live, and rationality doesn't necessarily include morality.

>>> As Ayn Rand pointed out, if Freud had adopted a rational approach and tried to prove to us that man was not rational, then he would have been contradicting himself.

The very reason why you are alive is because your behavior is instinctual: you drink, you eat, you sleep, you seek shelter from the forces of Nature, you look for cars fearfully when you cross a street or when you walk through critter infested bushes, you work to gather resources. And, apparently, because you are efficient in doing these things, you see beyond them and philosophize in the remaining time.

But just because you are not aware of these subconscious things, you start believing that you are more important than your subconscious, you think that you are alive just because you wish so and not because trillions of cells which work together so that you can arrogantly think that you are driven by reason.

If anything, you are driven by chemicals colliding, then instincts, then, if there is any time left, by a mental process called reasoning.

Freud was right and many people these days (it's a trend to say that Freud was wrong) don't understand the fine points made by him. Humans are driven by instincts. They can think beyond instincts, but they are driven by them. It's their engine, their core, their very purpose and cause of existence.

I'm saying that the drive behind anything humans do is the survival instinct, except when having free time. Compare a guy who wastes his free time getting drunk in a bar, and a guy who studies how to kill some germ. Only one is driven by the survival instinct and you folk would all say that this guy acts rationally: the germ killer. But he is in fact increasing the chances of survival of humans. That is his drive. Rationality may be a way to fulfill his drive, but he must fulfill it nonetheless.

>>> Freud never did explain how this non-rational creature invented the internal combustion engine, discovered the principles of Newtonian mechanics, invented the airplane and the TV set, and he certainly failed to predict that men would walk on the moon.

It's called survival instinct and it makes animals fight as efficiently as they can in order to survive. Humans have proved, by the time passed, to be better at it. The evolution of billions of years has selected these creatures called humans to be better at it. Making those discoveries has increased the chances of humans to survive to what Nature throws at them.

Humans didn't do those discoveries just because they were rational, but because an instinct forced them to find various solutions to the given problems: how do you transport food faster, how do you transmit solutions and warnings faster, how do you kill those germs, how do you find ore in other places / planets, how do you protect yourself from rain, heat and cold.

Everything is done because something inside says live. And those with free time, because others have created very efficient mechanisms to free people from working on a piece of land or hunting animals 16 hours a day, philosophize.

The human species didn't survive so far just because philosophers had time to reason, but because the survival instinct forced most humans to actively increase their survival chances: FIGHT to the death, or die anyway!

>>> Drive is great, but all it does it get you off your ass. After that, it's think or die.

Well, there are millions of species of animals inferior to humans, and then there are humans. Some of those inferior species live for hundreds of millions of years. Indeed, the drive matters and keeps one alive.

Humans could get extinct tomorrow because of the immense destructive power that their thinking has created. For sure, humans have not proven the superiority of thinking on an evolutionary scale.

>>> To come back to politics

And to come back to politics, the reason why socialists exist and want your money is because they have a different nature. Men are not all equal. Some humans can't or won't fight as much as you or in the way that you do. They will just take what you produce, morality aside. It is that simple! No need for pages, essays, books and libraries full of philosophy.

Human nature creates its own path! Live or die. Nature doesn't care! ... Next species, please!

Speaking of which, two things made me write this response: the vapors of love / the smell of a woman that made me euphoric enough to start wasting creative energy in order to impress her (although it's unlikely she's ever gonna read this), and because you've pissed me off implying that Freud was a bad guy.

So, the root cause was pure instinct / emotions, then came reasoning (because I have the free time and because something inside forces me to do it and hammers me constantly until I feed it).

I've consumed too much energy writing this thing, so philosophy is out for the rest of the day. Going back to eating some energy giving food, drinking some life giving water... Instinct calls...

I don't see you changing our political system or doing any better for yourself by choosing to rebel against it.

Someone else responded that sometimes it's better to walk around a wall than repeatedly bang one's head into it, which is true for obvious practical reasons.

It is however a good thing that he didn't get to decide the politics of allies when Hitler was raging.

Just yesterday I was watching "Foyle's War" where he was asked whether the war was worth it (meaning the death and pain).

It is, I don't know, interesting / compassionable / pathetic to see how pitiful and degraded humans are, questioning whether fighting poison is worth it, implying that the better choice might be to be engulfed by it: why are you fighting?, stop, it's not worth it, be like me, be like everyone, dead inside, flameless, dreamless, a slave of the context.

Most people just want to live, be it even as slaves, they just want to live. Whereas other people want to live free. Human nature: flock against the individual.

Not that I want to change anything. I just want to push the individuals to build something poison-proof (well, largely).

Humans are predators.

Humans are not predators, they exhibit predatory behavior. Due to the sophisticated mind of humans, they exhibit all three types of aggregation: solitary, flock and pack.

But the main aggregation type of humans is the flock. That can be seen by looking at the inner workings of large human groups.

A flock welcomes any individual and tries to make everyone average. It also redistributes resources to an average.

A pack is formed simply because it has a greater success in hunting. But in there, every individual is on his own. A pack doesn't try to change the individual; the individual must fit to the pack. An individual can get food only if the stronger individuals are fully fed. There is no average, it's a hierarchy.

You sound like a conspiracy nut.

There is no conspiracy. It's the usual deal. It happens every day. It happens right in your face, and it happens so because otherwise you would not get used to it; if it would happen unexpectedly, you would react violently and reject the change. You are so used with "leaders" controlling your life that you can't even imagine life without control.

It's like when you stay in a closed room and you can't realize that the oxygen is being replaced with carbon dioxide. You just can't see the alternative: life in the absence of control. Get out of the room, see the diversity outside the monopolistic ideas of the flock. See the Universe, see Life pulsating. Humans are not required for Life to exist. Their control is not necessary.

License | Contact