I wasn’t arguing against humans as multicelluar organisms. You claimed that an individual cell is to a human being as a human being is to the human species in defence of an ideology that advocates humanity before human - collective before individual. I argued that your analogy is flawed as the quantity (assuming non-zero)of human beings is irrelevent to the existence of a human species whereas the quantity of individual cells is definitely relevent to the existence of a human being.
Therefore, any inferences you would make about human nature from a comparison of human beings to cells within the human body are also flawed.
And I’ve argued that we need at least two people in order to have a human species and not just a random genetic anomaly that will disappear all too soon.
I think all governments and general social authorities are authoritarian where all forms of governments around the world are more similar then they would like to admit in that all are very much tyrannical where every form of media spin, propaganda, and political correctness can do nothing to hide that facet.
To me when people make comparisons between democracies and fascist dictatorships I find the entire arguements of so called pros and cons in comparison of the two to be redundant considering both systems revolve around a social tyranny of some kind.
( As an example.)
Sure…which a mob mentality can be equally tyrannical even without a government having yet be formed.
I generally look at human nature to be cruel, manipulative, and malignant.
I would say that mutuality is somthing that is quite lacking in human beings considering that there is nothing mutual about how our societies operate.
Social submission? How would you define the social dynamic or aspect as you call it?
Why is it that when I think of social I’m thinking of equal distributions? I don’t think the comparison of human beings and ants are valid considering their drone like behaviors.
You admit that human beings obviously have unequal distributions from which I build my basis that human beings are not entirely social because of it.
That’s what I would like to believe but this world is becoming where it is completely the opposite where people are apart of the collective first and individuals second officially in the public sphere apart from their private lives.
( Where in this world there is a seperation of public and private living.)
I blame alot of the world’s increasing conflict on this growing paradigm.
You would think that would be taught to the general populance but it isn’t where instead the collective construct has become common propaganda so effectively that it is accepted as the norm these days.
I would argue that choice is a very rare thing in a world especially in a growing technological global society where the varios interdependencies that make modern societies is thrusted upon individuals whether they like it or not.
You could and I’ve thought about a great many times myself, but do you understand the extreme hardships, difficulties, and risks you would put yourself through just to do so? ( Not to mention the amount of resources you would need to survive on your own in the wild which adds up overtime.)
People generally go with what is the more easier and convenient for themselves.
Of course nature is cruel and such a individual who would choose that would have to be of a extremely strong character or else they would perish easily amongst the natural wild elements.
( Such a individual would also find it difficult to be completely alone in isolation too when the madness of isolation sets in.)
I very much admire simple survival in comparison to the absurdity of civilized living.
In civilization I think people’s perceived freedom and self choice is illusional in that I believe largely enforced dependencies in civilization outweigh any semblance of self choice or freedom a person may believe they have.
I don’t believe historically it has always been so in that in earlier historical periods I believe it was directly the opposite where individuality actually meant somthing but with a increasing technological world that thrives on massive conformity it is obvious that the semblance of self choice or freedom is becoming increasingly illusory and out of touch for individuals that are more and more looked at as mathmatical concepts in statistical data in being apart of a massive collective.
I would argue that in a increasing collective world that revolves around tyrannical mass conformity the individual is more or less becoming more and more redundant where individuality is stripped away.
This is not a new or growing paradigm. For nearly all of recorded human history, humans have subordinated their individuality to a higher authority – be it god, king or the tribe. The last 300 years have been dominated by American productivity (wealth creation) and innovate genius. It is the first society that “attempted” to subordinate the collective to the individual – hence the “inalienable” rights in the Constitution. Look at the results. When humans are encouraged to live for themselves - and not their god or their tribe - a tremendous explosion in discovery and quality of life resulted.
What you observe as the collectivist society – I argue – is simply a reflection of what an increasing number of individuals are willing into existence with both action and non-action.
Assuming an absence of hierarchy, I can agree that society lacks mutuality. The Christians say, “As above, so below” and such a view is at best naive. But amongst wise individuals such as ourselves, my dear Joker, aren’t statements like, “The Christians have it wrong!” a given?
By the way, I have family in the Milwaukee are (the North Shore) next time I’m in the area may I buy you a few drinks? I think we’d both benefit from the exchange I’d get to meet you and you’d get to be drunk (I’d also get to be drunk, but I have a feeling I am used to doing such on finer [at least now that my girlfriend is employed, when she wasn’t I imagine I was drinking more on your level to satisfy my own, admittedly dependent, biological needs] stuff than you and we’d both benefit from the exchange).
Humans are a pack animal. It is that simple. It isn’t merely a matter of saying that it is such but rather of doing our best to taking advantage of it. On our own, we die. Homo sapiens is an entirely pathetic species taken in isolation. Our natural endowment is such that it can only be meaningful in a social context. Try growing out your fingernails and bringing down prey – it doesn’t turn out well. But collectivelly we can kick some ass.
Why should the distributions be equal in a social environment?
I don’t understand what you are trying to express here.
Hmmm… …Sure…Why not?
Packs usually look out for the interests of all the members working in their group.
Packs work for the advancement of all the members within their group.
Humanity and human societies generally don’t look out or guard the interests of all it’s members.
Humanity and human societies generally don’t work collectively to advance all it’s members where instead there is the advancement of the few while retaining hegemony or control over everybody else.
Perhaps but with the advancement of technology we are reaching a era where lone individuals no longer need the aid of a community where with technology lone individuals can survive on their own needing to only look out and fulfill their own interests.
People like to throw the word social around but as I have said in a variety of threads lately I question the degree in which human beings are social or collective.
Look at omega-wolves. The pack hardly looks out for their best interest. There are ostracized monkeys, old and unwanted members of the pack left off to die, grades in the access to the meat found in a kill (both in terms of quality and quantity) and so on. I hardly think that your idealized notion of a pack holds water. Compared to your ideal, what you are saying is valid but your ideal is based on faulty thinking.
I don’t know about that, especially with regard to technology. If I needed to build all the toys I use to engage in my modern, technological lifestyle I’d be pretty screwed. But because I’m part of a larger social process, I can still have access to goods that I did not have to build from scratch. The specialization afforded by modern society allows for us to have the convenience of modern society. Now, this process does also separate us as human beings (perhaps what you are referring to?) creating anomie. But that is also an important realization. An isolated life makes one unhappy or even mad.
I don’t think there are many willing victims but instead there are just victims alone.
I’d get to meet you and you’d get to be drunk (I’d also get to be drunk, but I have a feeling I am used to doing such on finer [at least now that my girlfriend is employed, when she wasn’t I imagine I was drinking more on your level to satisfy my own, admittedly dependent, biological needs] stuff than you and we’d both benefit from the exchange).
…Sure…Why not? 