Scourge of Humanity

[DrmDoc]

Greetings All,

I’ve placed this discussion here under Speculations because most of us are not interested in speculation and I sincerely do not want this topic given serious attention. However, an aspect of this topic compels my wish to express my thoughts on this subject in an open forum.  What I want to discuss has a basis in science that cannot be disproven or dismissed, as you may soon agree.

I want to begin with this declaration:  There will always be world instability and humanity will never overcome racism.

Rather than beginning with racism, I begin here with instability because racism is a child of instability.  I declared there will always be world instability because that is the basic nature of brain function.  I’ve had brief discussions of that nature (Mind & Consciousness) in other SFN forums and will not explore it too much further here because of the delicate nature of that topic; however, it suffices to say that homeostasis virtually assures that all living species do not function without instability.  Without that instability, there would be no progress and there would be no life.

The certain nature of instability in brain function suggest a continual battle to maintain mental balance.  It’s a battle of afference versus efference, which is a battle of stimuli versus our responses to stimuli. Our continual goal in that battle is to achieve a state of balance by not overreacting or underreacting to our experiences.  What compels me to discuss this topic here is evidence of my effort to achieve a state balance in response to a perceived stimulus unsettling my thoughts. Without this battle at the very foundation of brain function, there would certainly be no progression of life in this world.

As a child of instability, racism and prejudice exist at the very core of our being.  Although not justified by this fact, they are part of the primal and primitive nature of our ancestral being that assured human existence.  At our ancestral beginnings, survival depended on the kinship they shared among family.  That kinship grew into tribalism, which ultimately led to conflict as tribes began to compete for survival resources.  Although most resources are plentiful today, tribalism, thereby, racism thrives today and will continue to do so because it is at the very basis of our survival instinct.

Tribalism, a basic primal instinct, virtually assures there will always be strife and prejudice among humanity.  The only hopeful remedy I perceive is an ultimate state of empathy where we sincerely and truly perceive the kinship we share.  I believe I've made statements of fact here, which may or may not amount to scientific speculation but I welcome your thoughts.

[StringJunky]

That seems a reasonable take on it. The challenge for people now is to get everyone to feel they are in the same team. The issue to increasing the size of the group is that people lose their sense of personal relevance to a group. I think there comes a critical mass where the group numbers become too large, then splits occur along some line of social issue to bring back their identity and personal relevance in the new groups because the numbers are smaller.

[MigL]

I don't think group size matters and there is no 'critical mass'.
We are hardwired to perceive differences as possible threats; most animals, like us, do so.

Far better to recognize that this is a part of our nature, and we can like, or dislike, whatever, or whoever, we choose.
( we can even choose to change our likes and dislikes, as most are fairly fluid )
It is acting on those likes and dislikes that needs to be controlled by good laws.
For example, I might like cocaine, and that is fine, but I cannot use or buy according to laws.
Similarly, I might not like black people, and that should be fine too, but I cannot discriminate against them when renting an apartment; and we probably need better laws against that sort of thing.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

Far better to recognize that this is a part of our nature, and we can like, or dislike, whatever, or whoever, we choose.

I would add to this that our intelligence offers us a chance to reason beyond appearances, so that our choices are both broader and more meaningful.

[StringJunky]

I'm not denying nature. It's because of nature that we are probably wired this way. We can choose to think a certain way, but I'm saying, viscerally and by default, we perhaps tend towards rejecting those not like ourselves. Of course, we can override them if we want to. I guess those that have less personal insight, empathy and competence tend  to prefer to act on their feelings. Think MAGA groups.

[DrmDoc]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

We are hardwired to perceive differences as possible threats; most animals, like us, do so.

Far better to recognize that this is a part of our nature, and we can like, or dislike, whatever, or whoever, we choose.
( we can even choose to change our likes and dislikes, as most are fairly fluid )
It is acting on those likes and dislikes that needs to be controlled by good laws.

I agree with everything you've stated here as what you've written expresses my precise meaning.  We may not be able to evolve beyond our basic human nature but it's likely that such an evolution begins with recognizing that nature with steps toward controlling its abhorent expressions.  It maybe fine to like or dislike a person for some reason or another but it isn't when our likes and dislikes disrupt the societal cohesion essential to staving our society's eventual colapse, which I believe is inevitable.  In the whole of human history, there has never been a prominent society which hasn't suffered eventaul colapse.  The division adherent to our nature assures our inevitable self-destruction--IMO.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I'm not denying nature. It's because of nature that we are probably wired this way. We can choose to think a certain way, but I'm saying, viscerally and by default, we perhaps tend towards rejecting those not like ourselves. Of course, we can override them if we want to. I guess those that have less personal insight, empathy and competence tend  to prefer to act on their feelings. Think MAGA groups.

 We are a primal species enslaved to our primitive nature waging a subtle war against that nature throughout our entire life.  Although we may not be aware or in control of who we are at birth, as newborns we are wired to be selfish and self-center where only our survival needs matter regardless of our caregivers health and welfare.  In some form, most of us carry that selfish quality into our adulthood with societal advantage and disadvange. One advantage is the industry that rest on the shoulders of a select few.  One disadvantage is the industry that rest on the shoulders of a select few.  We give power to a select few of selfish individuals who often do not act in our best interests.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I would add to this that our intelligence offers us a chance to reason beyond appearances, so that our choices are both broader and more meaningful.

I agree with your perspective.  No doubt in my mind that intelligence and reason are essential to our struggle against our primitive nature.  However, as you've acknowledged, these offer only a chance rather than a certainty that we'll make broader, meaningul choices. Brilliance brings recognition of the distinction between oneself and others who do not share our brilliance.  That recognized distinction, in my opinion, discourages the share closeness and trust we may want to eventually have with others. Nevertheless, I get your meaning.  Indeed, we owe our position above all other species in this world to our intelligence.  Maybe it is enough to elevate humanity beyond certain inevitabilities.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by DrmDoc

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

  We are a primal species enslaved to our primitive nature waging a subtle war against that nature ...

Which my post alludes to in fewer words. You are preaching to the choir.

[DrmDoc]

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Which my post alludes to in fewer words. You are preaching to the choir.

Indeed, I do get a bit wordy.  I should say that I perceive an alternate ending to the state of our species where what remains is something homegeneous and docile.  Perhaps far in the distance future, we will perceive no differences between ourselves in our appearance or culture because we would have become fully integrated as planetary society with an abiding perception of humanity as family, which our DNA currently suggests.

[Ken Fabian]

Our institutions of governance and law work to moderate our problematic behaviors, because we know people can't be trusted to be honest or fair minded or without prejudice. The larger and more complex the society the more important to have those institutions, which may well build preferential prejudice into the system and sustain it by force but do offer routes to less prejudicial institutions - which we do see.

I suspect much of the success at making peaceful societies out of disparate groups comes from having independent rule of law that (ideally) doesn't base it's judgements on the race or religion of the accused, but on evidence and testimony. Even sustaining an appearance of independence and fairness from turning to police can help moderate tensions. Where that is not the case I expect more taking matters into their own hands, with retaliatory revenge and more framing of conflicts as about ethnic or other differences - which can see blaming of groups for the actions of individuals, so the revenge may be taken out on the wrong people and make inter-group conflicts worse. At worst the groups have their own police and authorities who approve or participate in those conflicts.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[iNow]

For the most part, we’re mostly hairless apes throwing feces at each other.

That said, even single celled organisms tend to distinguish between “ouch” and “not ouch” or between “food” and “not food” and likewise between dark and light or hot and cold. Life and chemistry itself seem to be classifying and reacting machines.

The categories and distinctions really aren’t the problem though, IMO. It’s how we respond and react to them that matters. 

For example in another currently relevant context, do we treat trans kids as subhuman scary predators here to slice away the innocence of your own children, or just a different kind of human still deserving of the same love, respect, and protection as everyone else…

It’s okay to recognize real differences from the mean, but not okay turning that into a permission structure for BEING mean. 

[DrmDoc]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

For the most part, we’re mostly hairless apes throwing feces at each other.

That said, even single celled organisms tend to distinguish between “ouch” and “not ouch” or between “food” and “not food” and likewise between dark and light or hot and cold. Life and chemistry itself seem to be classifying and reacting machines.

The categories and distinctions really aren’t the problem though, IMO. It’s how we respond and react to them that matters. 

For example in another currently relevant context, do we treat trans kids as subhuman scary predators here to slice away the innocence of your own children, or just a different kind of human still deserving of the same love, respect, and protection as everyone else…

It’s okay to recognize real differences from the mean, but not okay turning that into a permission structure for BEING mean. 

I always enjoy your turn of phasing and I agree that acknowledging our differences doesn't justify the often shabby way we treat others who are different.  Acknowledging our primitive nature isn't a license to engage that nature to the detriment of those who want and deserve the same freedom, privilege and respect some of us have enjoyed from the moment we were born.  But we may never get there as a species where self and self-survival trumps all other considerations.

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Our institutions of governance and law work to moderate our problematic behaviors, because we know people can't be trusted to be honest or fair minded or without prejudice. The larger and more complex the society the more important to have those institutions, which may well build preferential prejudice into the system and sustain it by force but do offer routes to less prejudicial institutions - which we do see.

I suspect much of the success at making peaceful societies out of disparate groups comes from having independent rule of law that (ideally) doesn't base it's judgements on the race or religion of the accused, but on evidence and testimony. Even sustaining an appearance of independence and fairness from turning to police can help moderate tensions. Where that is not the case I expect more taking matters into their own hands, with retaliatory revenge and more framing of conflicts as about ethnic or other differences - which can see blaming of groups for the actions of individuals, so the revenge may be taken out on the wrong people and make inter-group conflicts worse. At worst the groups have their own police and authorities who approve or participate in those conflicts.

We are instinctively tribal and there will always be ethnic strife and social injustice because of the primitive, primal aspect of our being.  Indeed, as you've observed, our only recourse may be in our governance, teachings, and the laws we enact to control our primitive nature.  But we remain primitives governing, teaching, and enacting laws biased by our primitive nature.  It's a vicious whirlpool ever spiraling downward.

[MigL]

This is more to do with the 'instability' that DrmDoc mentioned, rather than strictly racism.

The biggest motivator seems to be fear.
Someone like INow, or Ken, are very worried about climate change and global warming.
It will not cause the extinction of the human race, but it has the potential to massively change how we live our lives.

Others, like a redneck MAGA supporters, are worried about immigration, because immigrants will take the manual labor jobs and they'll have to re-train or be unemployed.
Either way, it is a massive change to how they live their lives.

fear of change seems to be the common denominator.

[Ken Fabian]

2 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

We are instinctively tribal and there will always be ethnic strife and social injustice because of the primitive, primal aspect of our being.  Indeed, as you've observed, our only recourse may be in our governance, teachings, and the laws we enact to control our primitive nature.  But we remain primitives governing, teaching, and enacting laws biased by our primitive nature.  It's a vicious whirlpool ever spiraling downward.

I dunno - a lot of nations have done very well at education, law and governance and aren't in a downward spiral. Very civilised, some of them. They couldn't exist as they are if there were not strong, enduring support for rising above our primitive natures.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[sethoflagos]

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

We are instinctively tribal and there will always be ethnic strife and social injustice because of the primitive, primal aspect of our being.  Indeed, as you've observed, our only recourse may be in our governance, teachings, and the laws we enact to control our primitive nature.  But we remain primitives governing, teaching, and enacting laws biased by our primitive nature.  It's a vicious whirlpool ever spiraling downward.

I think your rather over-egging the cake here.

A new nephew joined our extended family nearly a year ago, and it's given me the opportunity to see how his reaction develops to not only the only non-African face in the compound, but quite possibly the only white face in a local community of maybe 25,000.

Whenever I emerge from my man=cave, his attention is immediately drawn in a way that's immediately obvious to the rest of the family and a source of great amusement as his eyes follow me around the room. He obviously perceives me as different to other family members, and although there's undeniably some element of anxiety there, curiosity dominates. I've seen similar trends with his elder siblings and I've no doubt that in two or three years he too will be regularly visiting the 'troll's lair' to watch my latest Minecraft creations take shape, and ask me for the umpteenth time how to build Iron Golems. A simple common interest on which to bond.

He will not be harbouring deep-seated primitive hatreds against fair-skinned people since these only develop if given cause and we as a family shall not give them cause.

Indeed, in the near quarter century I've spent here, I've experienced no significant racially-motivated antagonism from anyone in the community. In stark contrast to the frequent abuse directed at my wife by both individuals and bureaucracies when she spends time in the UK.

So no. I don't believe you can partially excuse racial hatred as being a natural urge to be overcome by reason..It's embryonic source in nature will only manifest and deepen if nurtured to do so. I've only to watch a Youtube political news clip from the UK or US to see that nurturing in action.    

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

I think your rather over-egging the cake here.

A new nephew joined our extended family nearly a year ago, and it's given me the opportunity to see how his reaction develops to not only the only non-African face in the compound, but quite possibly the only white face in a local community of maybe 25,000.

Whenever I emerge from my man=cave, his attention is immediately drawn in a way that's immediately obvious to the rest of the family and a source of great amusement as his eyes follow me around the room. He obviously perceives me as different to other family members, and although there's undeniably some element of anxiety there, curiosity dominates. I've seen similar trends with his elder siblings and I've no doubt that in two or three years he too will be regularly visiting the 'troll's lair' to watch my latest Minecraft creations take shape, and ask me for the umpteenth time how to build Iron Golems. A simple common interest on which to bond.

He will not be harbouring deep-seated primitive hatreds against fair-skinned people since these only develop if given cause and we as a family shall not give them cause.

Indeed, in the near quarter century I've spent here, I've experienced no significant racially-motivated antagonism from anyone in the community. In stark contrast to the frequent abuse directed at my wife by both individuals and bureaucracies when she spends time in the UK.

So no. I don't believe you can partially excuse racial hatred as being a natural urge to be overcome by reason..It's embryonic source in nature will only manifest and deepen if nurtured to do so. I've only to watch a Youtube political news clip from the UK or US to see that nurturing in action.    

I agree 100%. Racism should be a very special kind of "nature" because I did not see it anywhere but in the US.

In 20 years living in Bonaire, I didn't see even one sign of racism, in any direction. Most of the population here are of African descent, of which most are various spectra of mixes. The rest are from everywhere in the world, due to former Dutch colonies and to more recent migrations. 

[DrmDoc]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

This is more to do with the 'instability' that DrmDoc mentioned, rather than strictly racism.

The biggest motivator seems to be fear.
Someone like INow, or Ken, are very worried about climate change and global warming.
It will not cause the extinction of the human race, but it has the potential to massively change how we live our lives.

Others, like a redneck MAGA supporters, are worried about immigration, because immigrants will take the manual labor jobs and they'll have to re-train or be unemployed.
Either way, it is a massive change to how they live their lives.

fear of change seems to be the common denominator.

Yes, it's Fear!  Fear was and is a useful quality that ensures our survival today as it did our ancestors.  Unreasoned fear isn't quite as useful as it causes us to overreact or underreact to our concerns.  Indeed, fear is that basic instinct from which our tribal nature emerges.  So much so that it spawns a tribal mentality not always grounding in reason.  A prime example is the herd mentality of the tourists to the United States capitol on January 6, 2022, spawned by the fear a self-centered former US president inflamed.  I dare say that every experience causes a type of fear where some response to a stimulus is required of us to quell our thoughts.  

11 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I dunno - a lot of nations have done very well at education, law and governance and aren't in a downward spiral. Very civilised, some of them. They couldn't exist as they are if there were not strong, enduring support for rising above our primitive natures.

I agree, indeed there are nations that do not appear to be spiraling downward.  However, these nations have not yet reached their peak, which is where the fall will inevitably begin.  I'm confident that when we examine these nations more closely, we will find the begins of what will be the cause of their eventual decline.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

I think your rather over-egging the cake here.

A new nephew joined our extended family nearly a year ago, and it's given me the opportunity to see how his reaction develops to not only the only non-African face in the compound, but quite possibly the only white face in a local community of maybe 25,000.

Whenever I emerge from my man=cave, his attention is immediately drawn in a way that's immediately obvious to the rest of the family and a source of great amusement as his eyes follow me around the room. He obviously perceives me as different to other family members, and although there's undeniably some element of anxiety there, curiosity dominates. I've seen similar trends with his elder siblings and I've no doubt that in two or three years he too will be regularly visiting the 'troll's lair' to watch my latest Minecraft creations take shape, and ask me for the umpteenth time how to build Iron Golems. A simple common interest on which to bond.

He will not be harbouring deep-seated primitive hatreds against fair-skinned people since these only develop if given cause and we as a family shall not give them cause.

Indeed, in the near quarter century I've spent here, I've experienced no significant racially-motivated antagonism from anyone in the community. In stark contrast to the frequent abuse directed at my wife by both individuals and bureaucracies when she spends time in the UK.

So no. I don't believe you can partially excuse racial hatred as being a natural urge to be overcome by reason..It's embryonic source in nature will only manifest and deepen if nurtured to do so. I've only to watch a Youtube political news clip from the UK or US to see that nurturing in action.    

I think you mistake my meaning, our tribal instinct is not justification for racism and we should not dismiss racism for same.  But like a newly hatched duckling, your nephew will instinctively latch-on to anyone introduced as family.  The divergence will inevitably begin as he matures and learns that differences can be detrimental to his pursuits and, ultimately, to his survival.  As he matures, your nephew will eventually be drawn to the people and the perspectives of those who are most like him--whom he perceives most like family.  Although you may now be perceived as family, this doesn't suggests that he will hold others with the same regards or continue to see you as same.  His primal instincts urges him to identify those distinctions among society members of import to his existence and he will inevitably align himself with those he perceives as members of his tribe.

55 minutes ago, Genady said:

I agree 100%. Racism should be a very special kind of "nature" because I did not see it anywhere but in the US.

In 20 years living in Bonaire, I didn't see even one sign of racism, in any direction. Most of the population here are of African descent, of which most are various spectra of mixes. The rest are from everywhere in the world, due to former Dutch colonies and to more recent migrations. 

Your description of where you live suggests that your society is homogeneous, where ethnicities and cultures appear to have successfully integrated.  Although racism as expressed in the US may not exist in your nation, anywhere you find the distinction of family, you will find tribalism, and where there is tribalism, there will always be division among people.

Racism in America is a problem to be recogized for what it is--a throwback to the primitive in us all, which we should not accept as evolved and intelligent beings.

Edited March 19, 2023 by DrmDoc

[sethoflagos]

41 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I think you mistake my meaning, our tribal instinct is not justification for racism and we should not dismiss racism for same.  But like a newly hatched duckling, your nephew will instinctively latch-on to anyone introduced as family.  The divergence will inevitably begin as he matures and learns that differences can be detrimental to his pursuits and, ultimately, to his survival.  As he matures, your nephew will eventually be drawn to the people and the perspective of those who are most like him--whom he perceives most as family.  Although you may now be perceived as family, this doesn't suggests that he will hold others with that regard or continue to see you as same.  His primal instincts urges him to identify those distinctions among society members of import to his existence and he will inevitably align himself with those he perceives as members of his tribe.

This sermon is uncomfortably close to a social Darwinist way of thinking that is most definitely not born out by my experience of generally amicable relationships with all sections of my local community. The innate and inevitable hostility you postulate just isn't there.  

 

[DrmDoc]

46 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

This sermon is uncomfortably close to a social Darwinist way of thinking that is most definitely not born out by my experience of generally amicable relationships with all sections of my local community. The innate and inevitable hostility you postulate just isn't there.  

 

I respect your hopeful perspective and sincerely hope that it is not.

[Ken Fabian]

7 hours ago, Genady said:

Racism should be a very special kind of "nature" because I did not see it anywhere but in the US.

I think racism, bigotry and preferential treatment is still widespread and in places it can be institutionalised. I wouldn't like being Islamic in most of India for example. Or Untouchable. There is plenty of racism here in Australia but also a lot of goodwill countering it. And efforts to counter the goodwill in turn - naming it "woke" (a new variant on "do gooder"?) in imitation of the rhetoric out of the USA.