3 ms·

In what ways has mankind demonstrated that "tribes of men" can't cooperate? Humans have been able to live in large decentralized polities for millennia and mode

by culi 4y ago

In what ways has mankind demonstrated that "tribes of men" can't cooperate? Humans have been able to live in large decentralized polities for millennia and modern archeology strongly backs this up. Göbekli Tepe (~11kya), the still-standing mammoth houses of North Eastern Europe (~15kya), or perhaps best exemplified by "the new archaic" or "monuments without kings"[^0] which is a term used by archeologists to describe the study of certain North American monument sites like Poverty Point where massive complex monuments were built by mobile groups of foragers without the need for permanent habitation. These massive geo-engineering projects were taken on by many different independent but connected tribes of peoples. Wherever you look we see constant evidence of humanity's ability to cooperate to achieve grand accomplishments. I mean we're on the internet ffs. Ever heard of Wikipedia? Or how most modern tech companies are only possible because of the massive efforts of the open source communities? These aren't really new behaviors for humanity. In fact, I'd argue that if you take a look at the way language evolved you'd find a lot of support for the idea that it's actually a defining characteristic of humanity [^0]: https://documents.saa.org/container/docs/default-source/doc-publications/publications/the-saa-archaeological-record/tsar-2008/nov08.pdf?sfvrsn=b93c98bb_2 https://documents.saa.org/container/docs/default-source/doc-...

082349872349872 4y ago
Mutual Aid Among Animals mentions the existence of Defectors. I would argue both that the existence of the internet in particular and civilisation in general is a sign that great numbers of people can cooperate effectively, and that the woeful Covid response is a sign that small numbers of people defecting can be ruinous. The best laid plans of mice and men, therefore, would seem to be those that (a) allow Cooperators to combine with at least linear effect, and (b) are resistant to sizeable Defecting populations.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Defectors implies authoritarianism, and my way or the highway thinking. which have generally been the enemy of overall cooperation. Wikipedia and the internet work because they mostly aren't like that, and are at their worst when they are.
  - Gravityloss 4y ago
    Hmm, if someone "defects" wikipedia and doesn't edit it, no big deal. But there absolutely are edit wars and battles of authority and admin bans etc.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Indeed. Hence my final phrase :)
      - 082349872349872 4y ago
        OK, so what model of overall cooperation would avoid Wikipedia drama? (having seen humanity's response to Covid, I'm not willing to admit "the spirit of full cooperation will bloom as defecting behaviour withers away" as axiomatic. But I am curious as to what you have in mind?)
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        I don't have an alternative for Wikipedia. I'm saying we shouldn't lean into any (always seductive) way of thinking that demonises people who disagrees with our one true way of doing things. People should be herded cats; neither wild cats nor herded sheep.
        082349872349872 4y ago
        Agreed. What terms might be better than the game-theoretic Cooperator and Defector, then?
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Defect and Cooperate are terms of art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Generalized_form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Generalized... In a "one hand washes the other" model of cooperation, the right hand would be defecting if it was frequently washed by the left, while never (or infrequently) washing in return.
- serverholic 4y ago
  I think the woeful Covid response shows how powerful culture is in shaping human behavior. This is simultaneously terrifying and a source of optimism.
jrochkind1 4y ago
I think Kropotkin would agree with you rather than GP -- you are making arguments that would in fact be dear to Kropotkin. Check out his books for yourself if interested. His work on this subject was in large part a response to the influence of "darwinism" at the time, where it became commonplace to think that "evolution" meant that we were evolved to compete with each other viciously, that selfish competition was our evolutionary inheritance, that this was somehow proven by darwin that we were "naturally" inclined to brutal competition between individuals. (I think a lot of this thought is still commonplace, including in "evolutionary psychology.") Kropotkin argued that this is a misreading of natural history and the effects of evolution, that in fact cooperation is just as much/more a factor in natural selection, in survivability, that all creatures were in fact "evolved" to cooperate -- including humans, and for sure there are many many places where intensive cooperation is visible in human history. (He specifically wrote about "indigenous" societies being based on cooperation -- which I think is an over-simplification, "indigenous" societies historical and present are very diverse rather than uniform on this axis -- see _Dawn of Everything_ for a contemporary anarchist scholarly take on this diversity -- but that was Kropotkin's scholarly anarchist take at the time). (If humans have in modern times often chosen on a mass scale to mistreat and kill each other even though they are "naturally" cooperative, it is not because of some evolutionary predestination). Is what I get as a summary of one of Kropotkin's theses. I think he would fully agree that cooperation is one of the defining characteristics of humanity, would fully agree that humans are "built for cooperation". Cooperation as fundamental and foundational to evolution, and to animal as well as human life (humans understood as animals in the post-darwin world) was, like, his whole thing. Check out the wikipedia section in his entry, for confirmation that my interpretation is common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin#Cooperation_and_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin#Cooperation_an... I think GP's comment here is a mischaracterization. I am worried that y'all are going to get the wrong idea about Kropotkin here! [He was thinking and writing in the Victorian era, and his approach to "science" is characteristic, it wouldn't be accepted as a proper "scientific" approach today. It is still, though, I agree with OP article, interesting and useful philosophy, which provides a challenge to what we can realize are some assumptions not scientifically validated of even contemporary "evolutionary psychological" thinking].
- 4y ago

by culi 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago

Mutual Aid Among Animals mentions the existence of Defectors. I would argue both that the existence of the internet in particular and civilisation in general is a sign that great numbers of people can cooperate effectively, and that the woeful Covid response is a sign that small numbers of people defecting can be ruinous. The best laid plans of mice and men, therefore, would seem to be those that (a) allow Cooperators to combine with at least linear effect, and (b) are resistant to sizeable Defecting populations.

robertlagrant 4y ago
Defectors implies authoritarianism, and my way or the highway thinking. which have generally been the enemy of overall cooperation. Wikipedia and the internet work because they mostly aren't like that, and are at their worst when they are.
- Gravityloss 4y ago
  Hmm, if someone "defects" wikipedia and doesn't edit it, no big deal. But there absolutely are edit wars and battles of authority and admin bans etc.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Indeed. Hence my final phrase :)
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      OK, so what model of overall cooperation would avoid Wikipedia drama? (having seen humanity's response to Covid, I'm not willing to admit "the spirit of full cooperation will bloom as defecting behaviour withers away" as axiomatic. But I am curious as to what you have in mind?)
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        I don't have an alternative for Wikipedia. I'm saying we shouldn't lean into any (always seductive) way of thinking that demonises people who disagrees with our one true way of doing things. People should be herded cats; neither wild cats nor herded sheep.
        082349872349872 4y ago
        Agreed. What terms might be better than the game-theoretic Cooperator and Defector, then?
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  Defect and Cooperate are terms of art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Generalized_form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Generalized... In a "one hand washes the other" model of cooperation, the right hand would be defecting if it was frequently washed by the left, while never (or infrequently) washing in return.
serverholic 4y ago
I think the woeful Covid response shows how powerful culture is in shaping human behavior. This is simultaneously terrifying and a source of optimism.

jrochkind1 4y ago

I think Kropotkin would agree with you rather than GP -- you are making arguments that would in fact be dear to Kropotkin. Check out his books for yourself if interested. His work on this subject was in large part a response to the influence of "darwinism" at the time, where it became commonplace to think that "evolution" meant that we were evolved to compete with each other viciously, that selfish competition was our evolutionary inheritance, that this was somehow proven by darwin that we were "naturally" inclined to brutal competition between individuals. (I think a lot of this thought is still commonplace, including in "evolutionary psychology.") Kropotkin argued that this is a misreading of natural history and the effects of evolution, that in fact cooperation is just as much/more a factor in natural selection, in survivability, that all creatures were in fact "evolved" to cooperate -- including humans, and for sure there are many many places where intensive cooperation is visible in human history. (He specifically wrote about "indigenous" societies being based on cooperation -- which I think is an over-simplification, "indigenous" societies historical and present are very diverse rather than uniform on this axis -- see _Dawn of Everything_ for a contemporary anarchist scholarly take on this diversity -- but that was Kropotkin's scholarly anarchist take at the time). (If humans have in modern times often chosen on a mass scale to mistreat and kill each other even though they are "naturally" cooperative, it is not because of some evolutionary predestination). Is what I get as a summary of one of Kropotkin's theses. I think he would fully agree that cooperation is one of the defining characteristics of humanity, would fully agree that humans are "built for cooperation". Cooperation as fundamental and foundational to evolution, and to animal as well as human life (humans understood as animals in the post-darwin world) was, like, his whole thing. Check out the wikipedia section in his entry, for confirmation that my interpretation is common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin#Cooperation_and_competition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin#Cooperation_an... I think GP's comment here is a mischaracterization. I am worried that y'all are going to get the wrong idea about Kropotkin here! [He was thinking and writing in the Victorian era, and his approach to "science" is characteristic, it wouldn't be accepted as a proper "scientific" approach today. It is still, though, I agree with OP article, interesting and useful philosophy, which provides a challenge to what we can realize are some assumptions not scientifically validated of even contemporary "evolutionary psychological" thinking].

4y ago