Difference between revisions of "User talk:NonZeroSum"

From Philosophical Vegan Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Dale is in agreement with Ted that high-level technological societies cannot exist without a fairly large amount of stratified, suffering inducing hierarchies. However, Dale simply values the trade off, i.e. the ability to be connected internationally, and so use one’s intellect to stay vigilant over one’s rights in one country in comparison to other countries, etc. A primitive world is unappealing in so much as it’s the luck of the draw whether you could be born into a fairly egalitarian tribe or a tyrannical one, plus escaping a tyrannical one being born female would have been harder than today in many countries.  
+
Dale agrees with Ted that high-level technological societies cannot exist without significant hierarchies that often lead to suffering. However, Dale values the trade-off, particularly the capacity for global connectivity and the potential to use one’s intellect to remain vigilant about rights. He contrasts this with the precariousness of primitive societies, where the egalitarianism of a tribe was often a matter of luck, and escaping tyranny—especially for women—was far harder than today in many parts of the world.
 +
Hanno Sauer, in The Invention of Good and Evil, examines the transition from egalitarian communities to hierarchical civilizations, stating:
  
−
Here’s a long quote from the recently released book The Invention of Good and Evil by Hanno Sauer:
+
"The shift from prehistoric small groups to pre-modern large-scale civilizations has almost always been a shift from communities with an egalitarian structure to social inequality and despotic rule. The fact that we still live with extreme social inequalities in wealth, power, and status seems to have been the inevitable price to pay for social evolution towards complex large societies."
  
−
The shift from prehistoric small groups to pre-modern large-scale civilisations has almost always been a shift from communities with an egalitarian structure to social inequality and despotic rule. The fact that we still live with extreme social inequalities in wealth, power and status seems to have been the inevitable price to pay for social evolution towards complex large societies. But was it truly inevitable? There are growing doubts about the oversimplified narrative that humans throughout the Pleistocene lived in scattered small groups organised in an egalitarian way.
+
However, Sauer, drawing on David Graeber and David Wengrow, challenges the notion that such a trajectory was unavoidable:
  
−
The anthropologist David Graeber and the archaeologist David Wengrow have warned against falling for the allure of these kinds of simplifications, and recent research shows that even back then, tens of thousands of years ago, there was a plethora of social structures that were more entrenched, larger and politically more unequal than previously assumed. The popular narrative of the shift from egalitarian tribal societies to large inegalitarian societies prepares us to accept that this shift – and the forms of social inequality and political domination that came with it – was inevitable and had no alternative. What appears to be a sober description of the historical course of events is actually an ideologically charged narrative designed to suffocate our political imagination.
+
"There are growing doubts about the oversimplified narrative that humans throughout the Pleistocene lived in scattered small groups organized in an egalitarian way. … Humans have always lived in all kinds of conditions and socio-political arrangements, consciously shaping their coexistence. Some societies were familiar with strict hierarchies, while others moved effortlessly between radically divergent political structures, depending on the season or context."
  
−
In fact, according to Graeber and Wengrow, we humans have always lived in all kinds of conditions and, regardless of climate and group size, in all kinds of socio-political arrangements. We have always been conscious political actors who would not allow ourselves to be put in an ‘evolutionary straitjacket’; some micro-societies were familiar with strict hierarchies and despotic exploitation; and the inhabitants of some impressively large indigenous communities of North America with tens of thousands of members made fun of the lack of self-respect shown by the French and English who had just arrived in the New World, cowering in front of their social superiors and kissing their boots. Some societies were familiar with leaders or chiefs, but they were understood to have a serving role; other groups moved effortlessly – depending on the season – between radically divergent political structures, and were free masters of their own destinies during the summer months of abundance, but in the barren winter months would at any given time temporarily subject themselves to the necessary evil of a political sovereign.
+
Graeber and Wengrow caution against ideologically charged narratives that portray inequality as inevitable, arguing that human history showcases our remarkable political plasticity. This perspective resonates with me, as it emphasizes that inequality is not an inherent or unchangeable aspect of human nature. Similarly, our understanding of others’ behavior is shaped not by simplistic models of beliefs and desires, but by recognizing people as whole beings with traits, emotions, and social relations. Folk psychology often relies on tools like personality trait attribution, inductive reasoning about past behavior, and generalization from one’s own experience rather than complex, abstract theorizing. This perspective highlights the importance of recognizing both the shared and diverse ways beings navigate social worlds.
  
−
The existence of different varieties of socialisation over the course of social evolution is not surprising. The real question is why we are stuck today: why do material inequality and political hierarchy seem to have no alternative, and feel non-negotiable to us? Graeber and Wengrow rightly point out that thinking about political alternatives is always worthwhile; what would we miss out on if we agreed with Francis Fukuyama that the liberal-democratic-capitalist compromise was the end of history, and the only remaining serious candidate in the competition of political systems?
+
Dale’s perspective—that the benefits of modern societies outweigh the risks of primitive ones—is pragmatic. Yet, I hold on to Ted’s optimism for radical change. As he once said: “Never lose hope, be persistent and stubborn and never give up. There are many instances in history where apparent losers suddenly turn out to be winners unexpectedly, so you should never conclude all hope is lost.” While I hope for transformative change, I believe it can manifest through a far-left, anti-authoritarian revolution rather than through regression to simpler forms of living.
  
−
Yet even if we manage to throw a spanner in the works when it comes to simple stories of progression from small and equal to big and unequal, and show that human history has always been a history of intense political plasticity and social variability, in which we largely shaped our coexistence ourselves, could modern large societies really exist without inequality and domination? Perhaps this is precisely the reason why it seems as though we are stuck now: we really are stuck, and beyond returning to radically simpler forms of living – with their own particular blend of romance and harshness – it is very unlikely that developed societies can be organised without considerable socio-political stratification.
+
Ted’s tendency to frame modern malaise as an “evolutionary mismatch”—where the human mind, adapted for simpler environments, is unsuited for modern complexities—can oversimplify the relationship between humans and their environment. As one critique of evolutionary psychology notes:
  
−
Personally, I agree with Dale that the trade-offs are better than an uneven primitive world. However, I have some of Ted’s optimism that huge political change can still happen. Quoting Ted: “Never lose hope, be persistent and stubborn and never give up. There are many instances in history where apparent losers suddenly turn out to be winners unexpectedly, so you should never conclude all hope is lost.” I just have hope for reform and revolution towards a far-left anti-authoritarian world.
+
"One way that TIME reduces the complexity of the human experience is through the rewording of the human condition in ways that simplify who we are. … Understanding the human in terms of states (state-orientation) begins to be reframed to traits (trait-orientation). Traits are context-free. All the experiences that stimulate the mind are stripped away."
  
−
Everything we're capable of doing and nurturing is contained within the limits of our nature, I just think our nature is that we're capable of being very flexible in how we’re capable of nurturing kids to think critically and be able to pick who they want to be from a wide array of options.
+
This framing limits our ability to see the dynamic interplay between human adaptability and social structures. Rather than viewing modern issues as symptoms of an inherent mismatch, we might better address them by exploring the social and cultural frameworks we’ve created and rethinking the ways these frameworks constrain or empower us. This strengthens the argument for perceiving others as social agents embedded in relationships, rather than abstract repositories of beliefs and desires. While evolutionary psychology provides valuable insights, social sciences better address the nuances of human agency and interaction. Graeber’s work, in particular, highlights our capacity for flexibility and collective choice, perspectives essential for imagining alternative futures.
  
−
Here’s a quote from a media critique that details what is missed out on or limited in scope when viewing all social problems through an evolutionary lens:
+
I advocate for more communitarian societies, not to eliminate alienation but to provide secure, positive liberties to counter its effects. For instance, if Ted’s guidance counselor had prioritized fostering his social life over advancing his academic progress, his path might have been different. Additionally, systemic changes such as affordable access to counseling could prevent isolation. At one point, Ted sought help but abandoned the idea due to prohibitive costs and logistical challenges: “He was told that he would have to find a way to travel a considerable distance to the office, and that he would have to find some way to pay for his sessions. Both of these were more than he could manage.”
  
−
One way that TIME reduces the complexity of the human experience is through the rewording of the human condition in ways that simplify who we are. In an article on the prevalence of mental depression in the late 20th century, Wright (20th Century Blues) describes how mental health is a product of the genetic traits we inherit as individuals and the collective behaviors we learn as members of a social community that seeks to sustain itself. ...
+
Carl Jung’s advice to a depressed friend encapsulates a path to resilience through connection, creativity, and acceptance:
  
−
Here, understanding what it means to be human is being reframed from a state-orientation to a traits-orientation. In terms of states, the human is seen as dynamic, responding to the relatively temporary, highly contextualized conditions of a situation. The first paragraph provides a long list of these types of conditions (“burdened by,” “stifled by,” “mired for hours in,” and “deprived by“). But understanding the human in terms of states (state-orientation) beings to be reframed to traits (trait-orientation) in the transition between the two paragraphs. The phrases “modern life is not what we’re designed for” (¶2) and “the human mind evolved in an environment lacking” (¶3) simplify what the mind is about. Understanding the human is thereafter framed in terms of traits. Traits are context-free. All the experiences that stimulate the mind are stripped away. This second paragraph foregrounds mental traits (“Mental traits conducive to genetic proliferation are the traits that survived”) to explain why we experience stress, anxiety, and the like. That is, the mental traits we possess are not designed to handle the modern social complexities of life. In minimizing the ways in which humans are constructed by the external world, this view undermines the dynamic nature that defines the relationship between humans and their environment.  
+
"If I had to live in a foreign country, I would seek out one or two people who seemed amiable and would make myself useful to them, so that libido came to me from outside, even though in a somewhat primitive form, say of a dog wagging its tail. I would raise animals and plants and find joy in their thriving. I would surround myself with beauty — no matter how primitive and artless — objects, colours, sounds. I would eat and drink well. When the darkness grows denser, I would penetrate to its very core and ground, and would not rest until amid the pain a light appeared to me."
  
−
I think we need both lenses of analysis, but when analysing social dynamics, I think we can often get more value from a folk-psychological way of studying the current maladies we face as a species. Everyone has different views as to what percentage of study in the hard sciences vs. soft sciences is the most productive balance for gaining new insights into human behaviour short term and long term. I lean heavily towards if we want to come to a fruitful understanding of what matters to us, our perspectives as agents in the world, we need to look to social science and the very complicated holistic social framework we build up through perceiving what others are thinking and modifying our actions accordingly.
+
Ultimately, everything we are capable of nurturing exists within the boundaries of our nature. But our nature is profoundly flexible. By fostering environments that encourage critical thinking and offering diverse options for self-actualization, we can shape societies that align more closely with the values of inclusion, equity, and community. In doing so, we honor the rich political and social variability Graeber and others remind us has always been within our reach.
−
 
 
−
I think there is a strong imperative to build more communitarian societies less people can fall through the cracks of. That doesn't mean trying to make it impossible that people would feel socially alienated but offer lots of secure positive liberties to make up for felt alienation when it does occur.
 
−
 
 
−
If Ted's guidance counsellor in school had been less concerned about moving kids up a year and more concerned with asking whether Ted had a rich social life, everything may have gone differently for him. Or at the very least, it would be worth providing benefits for the poverty stricken to seek counselling, since there was a point where Ted sought out counselling, but ended up giving up on the idea because it was too expensive. “He was told that he would have to find a way to travel a considerable distance to the office, and that he would have to find some way to pay for his sessions. Both of these were more than he could manage.”
 
−
 
 
−
Finally, I think many people could simply benefit from Carl Jung’s recommendations to a depressed friend:
 
−
 
 
−
“If I had to live in a foreign country, I would seek out one or two people who seemed amiable and would make myself useful to them, so that libido came to me from outside, even though in a somewhat primitive form, say of a dog wagging its tail. I would raise animals and plants and find joy in their thriving. I would surround myself with beauty - no matter how primitive and artless - objects, colours, sounds. I would eat and drink well. When the darkness grows denser, I would penetrate to its very core and ground, and would not rest until amid the pain a light appeared to me, for in excessu affectus [in an excess of affect or passion] Nature reverses herself.”
 

Revision as of 23:06, 28 January 2025

Dale agrees with Ted that high-level technological societies cannot exist without significant hierarchies that often lead to suffering. However, Dale values the trade-off, particularly the capacity for global connectivity and the potential to use one’s intellect to remain vigilant about rights. He contrasts this with the precariousness of primitive societies, where the egalitarianism of a tribe was often a matter of luck, and escaping tyranny—especially for women—was far harder than today in many parts of the world. Hanno Sauer, in The Invention of Good and Evil, examines the transition from egalitarian communities to hierarchical civilizations, stating:

"The shift from prehistoric small groups to pre-modern large-scale civilizations has almost always been a shift from communities with an egalitarian structure to social inequality and despotic rule. The fact that we still live with extreme social inequalities in wealth, power, and status seems to have been the inevitable price to pay for social evolution towards complex large societies."

However, Sauer, drawing on David Graeber and David Wengrow, challenges the notion that such a trajectory was unavoidable:

"There are growing doubts about the oversimplified narrative that humans throughout the Pleistocene lived in scattered small groups organized in an egalitarian way. … Humans have always lived in all kinds of conditions and socio-political arrangements, consciously shaping their coexistence. Some societies were familiar with strict hierarchies, while others moved effortlessly between radically divergent political structures, depending on the season or context."

Graeber and Wengrow caution against ideologically charged narratives that portray inequality as inevitable, arguing that human history showcases our remarkable political plasticity. This perspective resonates with me, as it emphasizes that inequality is not an inherent or unchangeable aspect of human nature. Similarly, our understanding of others’ behavior is shaped not by simplistic models of beliefs and desires, but by recognizing people as whole beings with traits, emotions, and social relations. Folk psychology often relies on tools like personality trait attribution, inductive reasoning about past behavior, and generalization from one’s own experience rather than complex, abstract theorizing. This perspective highlights the importance of recognizing both the shared and diverse ways beings navigate social worlds.

Dale’s perspective—that the benefits of modern societies outweigh the risks of primitive ones—is pragmatic. Yet, I hold on to Ted’s optimism for radical change. As he once said: “Never lose hope, be persistent and stubborn and never give up. There are many instances in history where apparent losers suddenly turn out to be winners unexpectedly, so you should never conclude all hope is lost.” While I hope for transformative change, I believe it can manifest through a far-left, anti-authoritarian revolution rather than through regression to simpler forms of living.

Ted’s tendency to frame modern malaise as an “evolutionary mismatch”—where the human mind, adapted for simpler environments, is unsuited for modern complexities—can oversimplify the relationship between humans and their environment. As one critique of evolutionary psychology notes:

"One way that TIME reduces the complexity of the human experience is through the rewording of the human condition in ways that simplify who we are. … Understanding the human in terms of states (state-orientation) begins to be reframed to traits (trait-orientation). Traits are context-free. All the experiences that stimulate the mind are stripped away."

This framing limits our ability to see the dynamic interplay between human adaptability and social structures. Rather than viewing modern issues as symptoms of an inherent mismatch, we might better address them by exploring the social and cultural frameworks we’ve created and rethinking the ways these frameworks constrain or empower us. This strengthens the argument for perceiving others as social agents embedded in relationships, rather than abstract repositories of beliefs and desires. While evolutionary psychology provides valuable insights, social sciences better address the nuances of human agency and interaction. Graeber’s work, in particular, highlights our capacity for flexibility and collective choice, perspectives essential for imagining alternative futures.

I advocate for more communitarian societies, not to eliminate alienation but to provide secure, positive liberties to counter its effects. For instance, if Ted’s guidance counselor had prioritized fostering his social life over advancing his academic progress, his path might have been different. Additionally, systemic changes such as affordable access to counseling could prevent isolation. At one point, Ted sought help but abandoned the idea due to prohibitive costs and logistical challenges: “He was told that he would have to find a way to travel a considerable distance to the office, and that he would have to find some way to pay for his sessions. Both of these were more than he could manage.”

Carl Jung’s advice to a depressed friend encapsulates a path to resilience through connection, creativity, and acceptance:

"If I had to live in a foreign country, I would seek out one or two people who seemed amiable and would make myself useful to them, so that libido came to me from outside, even though in a somewhat primitive form, say of a dog wagging its tail. I would raise animals and plants and find joy in their thriving. I would surround myself with beauty — no matter how primitive and artless — objects, colours, sounds. I would eat and drink well. When the darkness grows denser, I would penetrate to its very core and ground, and would not rest until amid the pain a light appeared to me."

Ultimately, everything we are capable of nurturing exists within the boundaries of our nature. But our nature is profoundly flexible. By fostering environments that encourage critical thinking and offering diverse options for self-actualization, we can shape societies that align more closely with the values of inclusion, equity, and community. In doing so, we honor the rich political and social variability Graeber and others remind us has always been within our reach.

Retrieved from "https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:NonZeroSum&oldid=8619"