2 ms·

You're thoroughly missing my point. PG's argument is that man was designed, via evolution, to live relatively autonomously. My point is that even a casual glanc

by astine 19y ago

You're thoroughly missing my point. PG's argument is that man was designed, via evolution, to live relatively autonomously. My point is that even a casual glance at history disproves that. The German and Swiss states, for all their autonomy, couldn't stand up to Napoleon's hierarchical tyranny. In fact, it took a far more tyrannical society, Russia, to put Napoleon in his place. Hierarchy is sometimes necessary for survival, and is thus favored by evolution. When we seek freedom, it is not because it is the evolutionarily superior state. It is because their is a conflict between individual advantage and collective advantage. When evaluating life decisions, you have to account for both.

scottgnet 19y ago
Because German and Swiss states couldn't stand up to a larger force organized hierarchically is not proof that humans have _not_ evolved to work in small groups, it is only very poor empirical evidence that a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force. As for why people seek freedom, I doubt most consciously think about it in those terms. You seem to think that individuals ponder about the pros and cons of going it alone or being part of a collective, but it just doesn't happen that way. When you're brought up in a culture that is already one way or the other, and that is all you know, you rarely choose because it's not even a question that enters your mind. I'd suggest reading Beyond Civilization by Daniel Quinn.
- astine 19y ago
  The essential flaw in your logic is this: "evolved to" Evolution has neither purpose nor end. That which is more 'fit' (a very vague term to be sure) is what evolution favors. If a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force, then evolution clearly favors the former. Napoleon is a case example. There are many, many more I could call upon, but I think a lesson in world history is beyond the scope of this debate.
neilk 19y ago
Hierarchy is probably necessary for any society. Tree structures are efficient. But tyranny is inefficient. It's all about ruining the bonds of trust that hold society and the economy together, just to benefit a small number of people. All your examples are tyrannies. There is a word for people who invoke naive Darwinism to justify tyranny, but it escapes me at the moment.

by astine 19y ago

scottgnet 19y ago

Because German and Swiss states couldn't stand up to a larger force organized hierarchically is not proof that humans have _not_ evolved to work in small groups, it is only very poor empirical evidence that a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force. As for why people seek freedom, I doubt most consciously think about it in those terms. You seem to think that individuals ponder about the pros and cons of going it alone or being part of a collective, but it just doesn't happen that way. When you're brought up in a culture that is already one way or the other, and that is all you know, you rarely choose because it's not even a question that enters your mind. I'd suggest reading Beyond Civilization by Daniel Quinn.

astine 19y ago
The essential flaw in your logic is this: "evolved to" Evolution has neither purpose nor end. That which is more 'fit' (a very vague term to be sure) is what evolution favors. If a larger force with better weapons can defeat a smaller, disorganized force, then evolution clearly favors the former. Napoleon is a case example. There are many, many more I could call upon, but I think a lesson in world history is beyond the scope of this debate.

neilk 19y ago

Hierarchy is probably necessary for any society. Tree structures are efficient. But tyranny is inefficient. It's all about ruining the bonds of trust that hold society and the economy together, just to benefit a small number of people. All your examples are tyrannies. There is a word for people who invoke naive Darwinism to justify tyranny, but it escapes me at the moment.