Hey everyone, so this is my first post. i've written my ideas in essay form because other people are likely to read it and i don't like changing the introduction around. hope you enjoy and try at answering my questions. although i think the likely hood is that you will disagree with at least something. but, anyway reply and tell me what you think.
>>>
In this essay I will explain the ramifications that a socio-biology perspective of human behaviour has on politics and in particular classical libertarian thought. I’ve focused on explaining general, well established concepts rather than specific arguable ones. I will first briefly cover socio-biology and show how important it really is to understanding why humans behave the way they do. Then I will show that the sociobiological understanding of human behaviour can explain where much of the inspiration for liberty, and thus classical libertarian thought comes from and try to give insight as to whether this classical libertarian idea can ever be properly achieved.
Socio-biology’s main tenant as I understand is that the genes are the ultimate source of behaviour of all living things, and of course this includes humans too. These genes are under the influence of the pressures of natural selection and so it follows that genes that affect behaviour and increase the survivability of an individual are likely to become more prevalent as time goes on; reality confirms this on the whole. An obvious example of this in action is the common urge for most people, to protect their family. This is because our family represents our genes and if altruistic behaviour can protect them, even including such that the individual risks their life in doing so, this can sometimes be the fittest behaviour and best chance for a gene’s survivability. Obviously there are many examples I can give and from a socio-biological perspective, even giving up food is considered ‘risk’ for the individual as it represents a slightly lower chance of surviving, but in short this is the basis of altruistic behaviour. Also, since it takes a long time for changes in the environment to take effect on our gene pool this tells us that our behaviours, tendencies and instincts are best suited for pre-civilisation times. Contrary to popular belief, we have not evolved beyond nomad tribes and we are generally, physically the same. It would take far longer than even 40,000 years for any significant changes to occur in the human gene pool.
It should be noted there is a debate within sociobiology over the idea that we are ‘genetically determined’ to behave in certain ways, however this is really just the determinism/free-will debate with a different face on it, and I am of the perspective that free-will is completely compatible with socio-biology and indeed determinism, no matter how determined our ‘place’ in the universe turns out to be. Genes can only increase the likelihood of certain behaviours over others, they don't necessarily dictate them.
Understanding that evolutionary pressures on which genes are the origin of behaviour is very important, especially as i try to approach the basis of why law exists in a society. But before i do so, i have to explain why the phenomenon of large groups overtaking smaller ones has occurred so quickly in in history, relative to evolution. The most commonly accepted reason for this is that the beginning of cultivation and agriculture allowed for a much larger population and more spare time for the individual. It also allowed for settlements to form since people did not have to move around when food became scare in their current location. Now this obviously had an immediate effect on behaviour, but not necessarily on the individual’s genes due to the relative short time span.
One of the biggest change would surely have to be the transformation of religion as it went from ensuring cohesiveness and identity in a ‘band’ of individuals, which ensured survival, to these qualities being passed on to civilisations. There is evidence that the role of religion in society generally became more important and prominent the bigger a civilisation became to ensure cohesiveness, and that this was a conscious effort of the leaders of these civilizations. Of course, there were many steps between bands of nomadic people and civilisations, but I would like to keep things simple for the moment. The points I really wish to emphasise are that: the basis for our existing tendencies of human behaviour are best explained through understanding the evolutionary pressures shaping our behavioural genes in the past and that recent human history has likely had little effect on our genes pool since evolution occurs on a much longer time scale.
So how does this even relate to classical libertarians? Well as you know, the law is a fundamental part of libertarian theory and without it we’d be preaching anarchy! So if we look at why the law exist, surely enough socio-biology has an answer that does away with just explaining what law is and instead explains why law exists. But now here is where things get tricky. I only want to explain my understanding of why this anomaly of law came about universally in human society, and from an evolutionary perspective. I am not dealing with my own opinion of what is right or wrong and so it is good to remember to keep in mind that socio-biology only tries to see where it would be ‘fit’ for behaviours to exist, then sets out to prove them based on observed behaviour.
Why, then, does law exist? Well, the reason why it exists at all is, in short because groups that worked together in the past had more chance of surviving. This was achieved by the group using collective force to punish the individuals that didn’t behave in a way that benefited the group as whole and so only genes that supported this mentality arose. It’s also important to note that an individual doesn’t need to be related to everyone in a group for altruistic genes to exist since his/her fate is usually tied to the survivability of that group anyway, and a genes survival is tied primarily to the individual. So we can see that people with an inbuilt sense of right and wrong had more chance of surviving, due to the increased survivability of the group that individual was a part of. And since we still have this sense of right and wrong, it manifests today as law in modern day society. Essentially socio-biology does away with the argument of nurture over nature. However it in no way tries to understate nurtures role in the reason for the development of the sense of right and wrong among people. What should really jump out to libertarians is that ‘force’ is an essential part of society in maintaining law itself, and was so in the past for as long as humans lived in groups. Often a law’s origin was attributed to god or human nature and sociologists could only ever ‘speculate’ at the origin of law, but socio-biology provides a clear reason why law is, and not just what law is.
So relative to any event to have occurred during earth’s entire history, the changes in human society in last 6,000 years would clearly stand out as the most iconic if ever an impartial judgement could be made. However, humans do not live in synch with their genes as fundamental changes have easily outpaced them. Today, it is hardly said they we live in harmony with the environment, with each other, and even with our own newly acquired knowledge of the origins of life itself; our consciousness can only try to adapt to these changes. And there is no sign of slowing down as the speed at which society is changing, and its scope of control, is increasing exponentially.
Of the many problems facing human civilization, a main one would have to be the governing of society and the place for liberty and law in this day and age. There clearly is a need for control of individual and group action, but at the same time this power to control can be used for evil as well as good as eloquent writers like Fredrick Bastiat or Adam Smith show. And just as an individual’s consciousness which has been ‘shaped’ by nurture and our genes, which over the longer run has been shaped by our environment, strives to decide what is best for itself. So too can we try to decide what is best for the group we belong to also. However, if we can judge on which group an individual belongs to based on how much our genes survival depends upon said group, the largest group of all being human civilisation must take precedence over all others.
What I wish to show you is that for the first time we as an animal species has control of the forces that shape our genes, and ultimately our behaviour and our values we place on liberty, security, family etc. creating a circular process of influence. So I think there arises three equally important questions:
1) What is the best way for human civilisation to survive?
2) What is the most desirable state of the individuals that form the world civilisation?
3)What will the effects of choosing an answer for these first two questions have on the evolution of the human gene pool in the long run; keeping in mind our genes are the ultimate source of influence that leads us to the choose answers for the first two questions in the first place?
For the most part people have tried to answer the first two questions, but have failed to even realise the third question which is easily overlooked. It also might lead some (including myself) to wonder if the two main solutions are to somehow halt the evolution of genes, or try to curb societies way of living to allow for desirable qualities/genes to naturally survive over others. There is also the possibility that, as I alluded to before, the naturally most survivable genes could very well be one’s that are vastly different to what we consider desirable, including our natural urge for liberty.
by Ricky Ratcliffe.
OK. I'll try to answer.
>1) What is the best way for human civilisation to survive?
I like to think that freedom (including the freedom to gengineer) will increase division of labor make society economically stronger, overall. Plus freedom to have genetic diversity means we avoid the risk of monocultures being wiped out in the event of catastrophes.
However, our progeny, posthumans and purely artificial sentient beings (computers) and VR entities, will overtake us. Then, there may not be much need for humans to survive - at least in their current physical form - apart from being a historical curiosity.
>2) What is the most desirable state of the individuals that form the world civilisation?
That's up to them, really.
>3)What will the effects of choosing an answer for these first two questions have on the evolution of the human gene pool in the long run; keeping in mind our genes are the ultimate source of influence that leads us to the choose answers for the first two questions in the first place?
In the long run, human genes will be a historical curiosity. Who knows, even bacterial genes may be made irrelevant via more efficient nanobots. Self-reproducing physical genes will be surplanted by self-reproducing concepts.
BTW the changes I mention will take place faster than your 40K year time scale. Economics will of course remain valid, as long as there is scarcity and beings acting purposefully to remove felt uneasiness (probably, forever).
>Socio-biology’s main tenant as I understand is that the genes are the ultimate source of behaviour of all living things
A human growing up in the wild 40K years ago, or now, will act differently from a modern one who who went to public school. Does sociobiology consider modern life to not affect our behavior or evolution?
>It would take far longer than even 40,000 years for any significant changes to occur in the human gene pool.
Hmmm... is this figure based on measuring actual human evolution rates or is it only based on animal mutations? Does it take into account that something like 0.2% of humanity was extinguished only 65 years ago? What about the US eugenics program? Is nuclear fallout speeding mutation along?
>"A human growing up in the wild 40K years ago, or now, will act differently from a modern one who who went to public school. Does sociobiology consider modern life to not affect our behavior or evolution?"
well they would certainly behave differently in that surrounding and with the upbringing that would entail, but the individual is essentually no different (some small changes could occur). If someone brought a baby caveman to present day, adopted him and brought him up in suburbia... he'd be just as bright, and look like the rest of them. i wouldn't know how you'd go about telling him when hes older though... lol
>"Hmmm... is this figure based on measuring actual human evolution rates or is it only based on animal mutations? Does it take into account that something like 0.2% of humanity was extinguished only 65 years ago? What about the US eugenics program? Is nuclear fallout speeding mutation along?"
well some changes have occured. but it is much slower than most think. and it's especially slow since humans take so long to reach reproductive age. i really doubt nuclear fallout does much either... and because the human population is so big. you get a slower 'whole' evolution. BUT the smaller group, the faster the change.. it just evens out. the world wars probably changed the gene pool. but even if 90% of the population died, it wouldn't really change much unless there was a consistent (stoppable) reason why people died. point is, it happens and works very slowly.
Also, since it takes a long time for changes in the environment to take effect on our gene pool this tells us that our behaviours, tendencies and instincts are best suited for pre-civilisation times. Contrary to popular belief, we have not evolved beyond nomad tribes and we are generally, physically the same. It would take far longer than even 40,000 years for any significant changes to occur in the human gene pool. It should be noted there is a debate within sociobiology over the idea that we are ‘genetically determined’ to behave in certain ways, however this is really just the determinism/free-will debate with a different face on it, and I am of the perspective that free-will is completely compatible with socio-biology and indeed determinism, no matter how determined our ‘place’ in the universe turns out to be. Genes can only increase the likelihood of certain behaviours over others, they don't necessarily dictate them.
Also, since it takes a long time for changes in the environment to take effect on our gene pool this tells us that our behaviours, tendencies and instincts are best suited for pre-civilisation times. Contrary to popular belief, we have not evolved beyond nomad tribes and we are generally, physically the same. It would take far longer than even 40,000 years for any significant changes to occur in the human gene pool.
Ha! Someone gets it. 2 points; nature v nurture doesn't exist, it's nature/nurture (Or maybe even nurture ~> nature, meaning nurture is within nature). 2, we have not significantly evolved in any apparent way in over 100k years (except one, over the last 20k yrs, our brains are getting smaller on average).
The points I really wish to emphasise are that: the basis for our existing tendencies of human behaviour are best explained through understanding the evolutionary pressures shaping our behavioural genes in the past and that recent human history has likely had little effect on our genes pool since evolution occurs on a much longer time scale.
Based on the previous part of that paragraph, it would seem you are positing religion at least 20-30k years old... interesting. Any conclusive proof, I have not heard this?
I only want to explain my understanding of why this anomaly of law came about universally in human society
How are you defining law here? Codified written/spoken law is not a cultural universal.
And since we still have this sense of right and wrong, it manifests today as law in modern day society
Does that explain why we act a certain way, or why we create laws? I would think our "sense of right" influences our lawful behaviors. While our sense of group authority influences creation of laws "(the group using collective force to punish the individuals that didn’t behave in a way that benefited the group as whole)."
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
"Nurture" affects our behavior. If one child is raised in a closet and fed bread and water, or is raised by wolves, will he grow up and behave the same as a child who receives proper nutrition and human interaction?
"Nature" affects our behavior. If one child has Down syndrome, will he grow up and behave the same as a child who does not?
I don't understand the position of considering a genetic blueprint as all-important, while other factors like the conceptual (and hence physical) structures built up in our brains through experience, and the kinds of nutrition from which our physical bodies are built, and the institutions of civilization built around us, are somehow magically overlooked as though they are not elements of natural science and can't possibly affect our behavior.
A blinkered biologist who says "our behavior is solely determined by our genes" is not to be trusted on social issues any more than a particle physicist who vacuously states "our behavior is determined by a bunch of quarks and electrons".
"Based on the previous part of that paragraph, it would seem you are positing religion at least 20-30k years old... interesting. Any conclusive proof, I have not heard this?"
i really should have been more specific there. it gets hard to define religion when we really only have the few 3000 old religions and quazi new ones to set a standard. however, what i should have made more clear is that there is a tendacacy towards it. but what this manifests itself as, depends on what the environment that individual is brought up in. (and yes i did mean to include nurture as part of nature/environment). so nature could turn this religious leaning (a common understanding of religion isn't really good) into many different forms, and what i think is that the rituals, and traditions that existed kept the group together.
"I only want to explain my understanding of why this anomaly of law came about universally in human society"
yep, again, i needed to be specific. i mean to say that we had an urge for something like law. and in the past this was just seen as a kind of trade off for the individual for creaking them, risk/reward... but also some other, more gene influencing urges stopped people from murder. i suppose someone could be raised to murder, but only because they have this gene 'over-rided', as genes can be 'activated' and so... yeah, it gets ttricky.
Does that explain why we act a certain way, or why we create laws? I would think our "sense of right" influences our lawful behaviors. While our sense of group authority influences creation of laws
true, though i only covered it breifly. i suppose i could have been more specific. i just wanted to explain that laws don't come from god and were neither invented out of thin air, we have urges for them and natural selection is the cause.
also, i know i only breifly cover most points and havent even referenced it, but this is in the draft form so far. i'll probably change the ending even more so and make it more about our desires for a certain society were never in our control until now, and how there really is no objective truths or inaleinable rights and so on.
but i said in the piece, i even gave a paragraph to it i think, that genes don't dictate behaviour and that our nurture (i should have included environment; just a larger definition of nurture), plays a large role in who we become. genes become activated early in life by certain social pressures, or certain environments. and also, genes just give us urges.
one way to see it is that we have all MOST of our idyiosycracies influenced by genes, pushing us to behave in certain ways rather than others. And what i think is very important is that, while we can use science to see what is true in this world. in a democracy, and much of our lives are still affected by 'emotions and feelings. the thing that makes us feel hatred towards hitler and pity for the homeless, it surely gets politians elected as they try so hard to be liked. we arn't necessarily taught these thing, they are just reaffirmed by our parents and friends for most of us.
and now that we have ultimate control over pretty much everything, and a world civilisation doesn't have to compete against others. there is a huge circle of influence. we influence the environment and the environment influences us.
"A blinkered biologist who says "our behavior is solely determined by our genes" is not to be trusted on social issues any more than a particle physicist who vacuously states "our behavior is determined by a bunch of quarks and electrons"."
this is just determinism/free-will with a different face.... as i say in the article. also electrons/quarks cannot be predicted to behave in any way, they are fundamentally random by nature.
i think you missed the point of i'm trying to make. there is never a time a gene controls behaviour. it affects it a lot though. and we affect what causes the genes to affect us.