p.s. Cargile
August 6th, 2004, 11:20 PM
Note: the following was written months ago.
Once I believed that the laws of man were arbitrary, that we simply made them up based on how authority figures wished to control the behavior of a group. Of course, our laws are based on religious tenets and codes of conduct that are as old as civilization itself. These codes determined right and wrong and evolved from natural behaviors that early man exhibited as a social animal.
Channel surfing, I came across a documentary of a herd animal in Africa. I had seen many such documentaries throughout my thirty-plus years, but this was the first time I connected the instinctual behaviors of social animals with the two vying economic systems, and the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. The meaning of life bound all of these ideas together.
I should state that there are two meanings of life. One is the Meaning of Life, the spiritual meaning, and that question of esoteric answer, the understood question of the Creator’s purpose for Creation. The other meaning is rather obvious, yet more subtle. It is the biological meaning of life based upon the encoding of the genetic material to reproduce. This meaning of life is simply for species to survive and continue.
To survive and create progeny is the priority of life. The means to this achievement is different for various subgroups of species. Some animals are solitary, others form social groups, and these groups differ from insects to mammals. As we are mammals, the type of society that insects form are not accurate for comparison as we do not have genetically different humans of and for specific castes. The human, as a social animal, is better comparative to other social animals for the observations I now make.
The behaviors of social animals, be they predatory, or prey, are ways to survive and procreate. What is interesting is that these social animal do not exhibit collective behaviors and fairness to others is not an instinctive inclination. The females determine which of the males they allow to mate with them. Thusly the males must compete with one another to win the favors of the females. The males that win the attention of the females are of higher quality. They are fighting champions, more physically attractive, have the best matting call, and if predators, have better hunting skills, and any number of other species specific qualifying traits. The females are not interesting in sharing themselves with all male members out of fairness because this behavior will not secure the survival of the group. Inferior males with low survivability may pass on progeny that are also inferior, usurping better stock, and diminishing the group. Inferior males may also be diseased (which maybe the cause of their inferiority) and such mating may spread the disease, which may lower the number of births. The best of the group are required for the group to carry forth into the future.
Social animals also establish territory, which they mark and defend against other groups or members within the group. This territory is used for the procurement and securing of food, and for mating grounds. And while same species may not share their territories with others of the same species, they often ignore the territorial claims of other species. A cat, a dog, a deer, and a rabbit may share the same territory without trouble. It could be said that animals assume ownership of this territory. Ownership of property is natural. The animal has a sense that a plot of land belongs to it.
Early man united in groups to increase their chances of survival. The human as a animal is relatively frail, being weak in strength and swiftness compared to predatory cats, and lacking claws, fangs, and other physical defenses found in the animal kingdom. Man had to rely of his capacity to think and construct tools to enhance his survival. And early man had similar traits to other social animals as a foundation to build upon. The males of the group competed for the eye of the females, territory was staked out, and, like predators, used teamwork and strategy to hunt.
Human life became more complex as more tools, methods, and procedures were invented. Man learned that if he could kill a prey animal with a tool, he could also kill other men. It is likely that groups went to war over territory. Keep in mind that the biological goal of the group is the survival of that group. Since the death of another human outside the group didn’t harm the chances of survival of that group, this killing wasn’t considered wrong behavior. The concept of Us and Them had been established between tribes, who didn’t regard the other tribe or tribes to be Human. Since Man’s life had become complex, survival of the group not only depended on the best providers of food, but also to the builders of shelters and tools. There is no doubt that each person in the group learned how to make tools and build shelters, but there also must have been a few individual who where expertly skilled at their task and had the role of teacher. These people would also be highly valuable to the group. The number of inferior males and females would be on steady decline as humans became more complex so that all members of the group had a benefit to the survival and continuance of the group.
As early man’s intelligence grew greater, so did his emotions. The urge to kill moved beyond necessity, such as hunting, and defending territory, into emotional responses, such as anger, and jealousy. Killing within the group would be a detrimental to the group’s survival, and this would be inexcusable behavior.
Another factor for the survival of the group was the nucleus of that group, the family. The males took the role of primary provider, the women taking the role of primary nurturer, with the overall primary role of the family as a close knit unit insuring the survival of the child. Emotional attachments bonded each to each other so that both parents protected the child, and each other. Any behavior that was damaging to the family, would be harmful to the survival of the group.
The idea of right and wrong, or Good and Evil, arose from behaviors that either benefited the groups chances of survival, or deterred it. Any act that results in a diminishing survival capability and procreation is evil. One can review the Ten Commandment and see that a majority of them warn against behavior harmful to the group’s continued existence.
Concerning social animals, the group does not propagate because of the concerted efforts of all the individuals in the group. The group survives and carries forth offspring because of the achievements, merits, and attributes of a few individuals. The ones with more fortitude insure the survival of the group. As it is true and natural with wild animals, the same is true and natural of societies of humankind. Our societies and civilization also has moved forward--progressed-- by the achievements, merits, and attributes of a few individuals. They have been our inventors, inspirational leaders, victorious military commanders, renown scientist, philosophers, and artists.
Since we humans have become sophisticatedly complex, we don’t always compete for the favors of the women. That is we don’t necessarily strive for excellent, to the best that we can be, to increase our chances of mating. We have become complex enough so that our standards for potential mates are variable to greater degrees than lesser mammals. But we still compete to reach our full potential. It is the fulfillment of this potential that increases our group and our species’ survival. Any social ideology that attempts to curb this natural behavior can be considered evil. To prevent people from excelling in order to be fair to those who wish not to apply themselves, and to force equality will have the negative effect of lowering human production, and becoming detrimental to the survival of a large number of members within the group. Despotism and pure socialisms have caused more death and damage to survival of individuals, groups, and the species, whereas responsible liberty has lead to greater flourishing, prosperity, and quality of life for the same.
Ownership and the drive for excellence are two primary means by which a group, be they lions, wolves, gazelles, or humans, secure the survival of their species. Communism fails because it forces unnatural behavior upon people. Pure socialism can’t survive because of the same. Anyone that believes that they can bring about a Socialist Utopia is engaging in a folly.
And, of course, it is natural that more successful groups are considered threatening to less successful groups, and that these threatened groups will attack. And it is natural for the attacked, more successful group to defend itself. War is a natural means of protecting and procuring natural resources that enable the group a better ability to survive and pass on progeny. War is a natural means of preventing Them from killing off Us. And in a perfect world (the Walgreen’s Utopia?) we can open our arms and invite Them into Our group, and They will be willing to join Us. But in the real world, They might join Us, but somewhere in the future schisms will take place, leaving Us and Them with clear distinctions and the age old problems of group competitions and the threat of war. This is because there will always be groups with Evil inclinations.
Perhaps it nature’s way of balancing the numbers.
Once I believed that the laws of man were arbitrary, that we simply made them up based on how authority figures wished to control the behavior of a group. Of course, our laws are based on religious tenets and codes of conduct that are as old as civilization itself. These codes determined right and wrong and evolved from natural behaviors that early man exhibited as a social animal.
Channel surfing, I came across a documentary of a herd animal in Africa. I had seen many such documentaries throughout my thirty-plus years, but this was the first time I connected the instinctual behaviors of social animals with the two vying economic systems, and the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. The meaning of life bound all of these ideas together.
I should state that there are two meanings of life. One is the Meaning of Life, the spiritual meaning, and that question of esoteric answer, the understood question of the Creator’s purpose for Creation. The other meaning is rather obvious, yet more subtle. It is the biological meaning of life based upon the encoding of the genetic material to reproduce. This meaning of life is simply for species to survive and continue.
To survive and create progeny is the priority of life. The means to this achievement is different for various subgroups of species. Some animals are solitary, others form social groups, and these groups differ from insects to mammals. As we are mammals, the type of society that insects form are not accurate for comparison as we do not have genetically different humans of and for specific castes. The human, as a social animal, is better comparative to other social animals for the observations I now make.
The behaviors of social animals, be they predatory, or prey, are ways to survive and procreate. What is interesting is that these social animal do not exhibit collective behaviors and fairness to others is not an instinctive inclination. The females determine which of the males they allow to mate with them. Thusly the males must compete with one another to win the favors of the females. The males that win the attention of the females are of higher quality. They are fighting champions, more physically attractive, have the best matting call, and if predators, have better hunting skills, and any number of other species specific qualifying traits. The females are not interesting in sharing themselves with all male members out of fairness because this behavior will not secure the survival of the group. Inferior males with low survivability may pass on progeny that are also inferior, usurping better stock, and diminishing the group. Inferior males may also be diseased (which maybe the cause of their inferiority) and such mating may spread the disease, which may lower the number of births. The best of the group are required for the group to carry forth into the future.
Social animals also establish territory, which they mark and defend against other groups or members within the group. This territory is used for the procurement and securing of food, and for mating grounds. And while same species may not share their territories with others of the same species, they often ignore the territorial claims of other species. A cat, a dog, a deer, and a rabbit may share the same territory without trouble. It could be said that animals assume ownership of this territory. Ownership of property is natural. The animal has a sense that a plot of land belongs to it.
Early man united in groups to increase their chances of survival. The human as a animal is relatively frail, being weak in strength and swiftness compared to predatory cats, and lacking claws, fangs, and other physical defenses found in the animal kingdom. Man had to rely of his capacity to think and construct tools to enhance his survival. And early man had similar traits to other social animals as a foundation to build upon. The males of the group competed for the eye of the females, territory was staked out, and, like predators, used teamwork and strategy to hunt.
Human life became more complex as more tools, methods, and procedures were invented. Man learned that if he could kill a prey animal with a tool, he could also kill other men. It is likely that groups went to war over territory. Keep in mind that the biological goal of the group is the survival of that group. Since the death of another human outside the group didn’t harm the chances of survival of that group, this killing wasn’t considered wrong behavior. The concept of Us and Them had been established between tribes, who didn’t regard the other tribe or tribes to be Human. Since Man’s life had become complex, survival of the group not only depended on the best providers of food, but also to the builders of shelters and tools. There is no doubt that each person in the group learned how to make tools and build shelters, but there also must have been a few individual who where expertly skilled at their task and had the role of teacher. These people would also be highly valuable to the group. The number of inferior males and females would be on steady decline as humans became more complex so that all members of the group had a benefit to the survival and continuance of the group.
As early man’s intelligence grew greater, so did his emotions. The urge to kill moved beyond necessity, such as hunting, and defending territory, into emotional responses, such as anger, and jealousy. Killing within the group would be a detrimental to the group’s survival, and this would be inexcusable behavior.
Another factor for the survival of the group was the nucleus of that group, the family. The males took the role of primary provider, the women taking the role of primary nurturer, with the overall primary role of the family as a close knit unit insuring the survival of the child. Emotional attachments bonded each to each other so that both parents protected the child, and each other. Any behavior that was damaging to the family, would be harmful to the survival of the group.
The idea of right and wrong, or Good and Evil, arose from behaviors that either benefited the groups chances of survival, or deterred it. Any act that results in a diminishing survival capability and procreation is evil. One can review the Ten Commandment and see that a majority of them warn against behavior harmful to the group’s continued existence.
Concerning social animals, the group does not propagate because of the concerted efforts of all the individuals in the group. The group survives and carries forth offspring because of the achievements, merits, and attributes of a few individuals. The ones with more fortitude insure the survival of the group. As it is true and natural with wild animals, the same is true and natural of societies of humankind. Our societies and civilization also has moved forward--progressed-- by the achievements, merits, and attributes of a few individuals. They have been our inventors, inspirational leaders, victorious military commanders, renown scientist, philosophers, and artists.
Since we humans have become sophisticatedly complex, we don’t always compete for the favors of the women. That is we don’t necessarily strive for excellent, to the best that we can be, to increase our chances of mating. We have become complex enough so that our standards for potential mates are variable to greater degrees than lesser mammals. But we still compete to reach our full potential. It is the fulfillment of this potential that increases our group and our species’ survival. Any social ideology that attempts to curb this natural behavior can be considered evil. To prevent people from excelling in order to be fair to those who wish not to apply themselves, and to force equality will have the negative effect of lowering human production, and becoming detrimental to the survival of a large number of members within the group. Despotism and pure socialisms have caused more death and damage to survival of individuals, groups, and the species, whereas responsible liberty has lead to greater flourishing, prosperity, and quality of life for the same.
Ownership and the drive for excellence are two primary means by which a group, be they lions, wolves, gazelles, or humans, secure the survival of their species. Communism fails because it forces unnatural behavior upon people. Pure socialism can’t survive because of the same. Anyone that believes that they can bring about a Socialist Utopia is engaging in a folly.
And, of course, it is natural that more successful groups are considered threatening to less successful groups, and that these threatened groups will attack. And it is natural for the attacked, more successful group to defend itself. War is a natural means of protecting and procuring natural resources that enable the group a better ability to survive and pass on progeny. War is a natural means of preventing Them from killing off Us. And in a perfect world (the Walgreen’s Utopia?) we can open our arms and invite Them into Our group, and They will be willing to join Us. But in the real world, They might join Us, but somewhere in the future schisms will take place, leaving Us and Them with clear distinctions and the age old problems of group competitions and the threat of war. This is because there will always be groups with Evil inclinations.
Perhaps it nature’s way of balancing the numbers.