@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
but my point will remain essentially irrefutable: Social hierarchies, and dominance aggression have been great advantages to species for a very, very long time.
I'll agree with you on this point, but will point out (as others have) that because an innate "animal nature" exists in us and was beneficial to us in our distant past, it does not mean that it will help us get to the next step in our evolution (ideally, in my view, away from many of our animalistic tendencies).
Many millions of species have died out because their previously beneficial natures no longer suited them in their new environment.
It has been beneficial to us much recently than our distant past. We're still here and thriving beyond any other species.
What makes you think there is "another step" in our evolution, or at least one so significant as our giving up our animalistic tendencies (whatever they are)?
Once evolution comes up with a successful design, absent a significant change in the environment of the species there's not a whole lot of major changes. (See previously referenced sharks, crocs and lobsters). The sort of thing you are talking about is not very likely, at all, to come about through evolution.
You can view animal behavior in one of three ways
1)
The Disney/Unenlightened View which considers animals not only through an anthropomorphic prism, but one that contains major flaws. As a result we get on one hand, majestic lions who deserve to reign over their African subjects (including the ones they eat) and skulking, devious vultures and hyenas. On the other we got (and probably still get) the uninformed pompous buffoonery (pun intended as you will see) of a long line of highly regarded naturalists who felt themselves capable of pronouncing judgment on a species based either on either old wives tales or observation of a poor speciman delivered to their manor in Europe:
Quote:"The degraded species of sloths are perhaps the only creatures to which nature has been unkind."
Comte de Buffon, Histoire Natrurelle - 1749
This because the Count observed his speciman on the ground and not in rain forest trees, and despite the fact that sloths are an ancient and incredibly successful species (the smaller ones at least)
De Buffon was
The Man in his day - primarily because he discarded the even more idiotic claims of prior naturalists such as
a hunted beaver will stop, gnaw off his testicles and toss them to the hunter to save his life. This came from a time when
scientists believed beaver balls cured all sorts of maladies and beavers were not only smart enough to know what the hunter wanted, but dedicated enough to bite off their own testicles. It was also the time when beaver were wiped out of Europe.
2)
Reverse Specieism -
Animals are better than humans.
They don't cheat, they don't kill unless they are hungry, and they don't kill heir own babies! In fact, within their own capabilities they do all three and more of the behaviors we find reprehensible in humans. People who have this view are just about entirely ignorant of animal behaviors.(I can give you examples if you like)
3)
Rational - Animal behavior is neither good nor bad, beautiful nor ugly. It is what it is because it works very well over the very long haul. There is a form of beauty in this, but not the sort most people find. AND, humans are animals and one of the newest on the scene.
If someone thinks social hierarchies are bad for humanity I would love to know why other than "It's not nice."
