Humanity's Blind

[polyfrag]

I've never had any education in psychology/psychiatry, besides some books I read about memetics and sociology, but I'd like to share the view I've developed since I've gotten interested in the subject.

 

 

We all think with the mind of an ape. Our instincts, desires, fears, and emotions are 'extra baggage' from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

 

Evolution happens over millions of years, but all the major revolutions and innovations in society happend over the last 1000 or so years.

 

Rate of natural selection can't keep up with rate of changing environment, so we're stuck in hunter-gatherer mode.

 

We're held back by a bioligical 'speed-limit', even though we could be racing down the speedway of progress on the individual, national, and worldly level.

 

What is the point in owning a big fancy car? Does it increase chances of survival? Evolution occurs not only on individual level, but on social. If we all used public system, that would get rid of problems like traffic accidents, congestion, and pollution. But we don't, because of our instinctive ego.

 

Does eating McDonalds, candy bars, and other toxins turn us into supermen? Why does our brain reward us for eating such toxins, and why is everything we love to eat so bad for us? Blood pressure, obesity epidemic, and other health problems would be non-existant if it wasn't for our out-dated reward system.

 

 

Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say? Does anyone feel the same way?

[Kedas]

Does eating McDonalds, candy bars, and other toxins turn us into supermen? Why does our brain reward us for eating such toxins, and why is everything we love to eat so bad for us? Blood pressure, obesity epidemic, and other health problems would be non-existant if it wasn't for our out-dated reward system.

 

Well you basicaly answered your own question at least that one.

It's designed for us to like it it's not designed to be healthy.

To much the same thing is never good even if your brain likes the product.

[polyfrag]

Don't mind the fact that those were questions. I was being rhetorical.

 

Of course "too much" is never good, but our human nature should compensate for this.

 

Human nature in this case actually becomes an enemy. You have to suffer a bit to eat foods that are actually healthy for you, and you have to suffer a lot to live objectively (as opposed to subjectively).

 

I'm not just arguing about "evil capitalism", but all systems that exploit our out-dated reward system.

 

Sure, you say, you are free to make your own decisions and decide what's best for you. That's true on the individual level. But demographics and statistics prove that more often than not, on the population level, people only know how to be apes.

 

My point is that human nature is product of a different environment, suited to a different lifestyle, a barrier to any notion of progress to a higher level of organization.

 

Evolution is a slow and wasteful process. Cultural evolution outpaced biological evolution, but we are still held back by the ape-shells we inhabit.

[Mokele]

Yes, and? I fail to see where the question is; all of this is well-known.

[polyfrag]

I don't know. This all might just be really obvious, or you might just not understand the implications of what I'm saying. I'm going to keep talking, just in case.

 

 

I, for one, feel like my life, before the point I realized this, seems to have been a total waste. All that time and effort, and for what? To satisfy some meaningless instinctual urges?

 

I no longer indulged in pursuit of happiness, only enough to keep my sanity. I took up the struggle for self-improvent, I started reading, discussing, thinking hard, and revamping my world-model.

 

These days I find myself like an incubator for ideas. A tireless protein-based machine. I'm two minds, one fighting for instinctive wants, and the other one struggling for some higher ideal.

 

Even with this half-mind, I wield such an advantage over other people. And they don't understand the significance of any of this yet. To me, they look like lab-rats chasing after cheese. Or what would seem like attention deficit.

 

Currently I'm pursuing the same means/subgoals as anyone else, but for different goals. The same role-models everyone else follows no longer apply to me because I don't have the same consumer-oriented mindset.

 

Maybe it's the realization, coupled with metacognition. I don't know how everyone else thinks, so I don't know how well I'm explaining this.

 

 

So does anyone here know this feeling? What impact did realization have on your life?

[LucidDreamer]

There is an interesting paradigm that views the human mind as three evolutionary layers. The first mind is the reptilian mind that is purely instinctual; it controls basic instinctual behaviors, such as sexual drive. The second layer is the mammalian mind, which contains the sections of the brain that creates emotions; this layer creates feelings like love and hate. The last layer is the human mind, which is the part that gives use consciousness, logic, and the ability to use complex tools. The three layers together create a human mind with all of the behaviors and mental processes that we observe. The three layers work relatively well together and create a creature with a mind that has allowed it to spread all over the world. Sometimes, however, two or more of the three layers are at odds with one another because they each have their own programmed agenda.

[iglak]

Human nature in this case actually becomes an enemy. You have to suffer a bit to eat foods that are actually healthy for you, and you have to suffer a lot to live objectively (as opposed to subjectively).

 

only because you get addicted to it. usually at a young age, when sugar and fat taste good, to promote having excess calories to use for growing and learning. and as a result of drinking fat-filled breast milk.

 

if you stop eating those foods for a few months, i can guarantee they'll start to taste bad. tea tastes better than soda to me right now. McDonalds, and most fast foods taste terrible to me.

 

 

What is the point in owning a big fancy car? Does it increase chances of survival?

actually, it does. having a big fancy car makes people think you can afford a big fancy car, which makes people think your rich. being rich, or even being thought of as rich, is very beneficial to our survival and the ability to have and raise children.

if people don't think of you as rich enough for the car, then at the very least they're going to know who you are because of it. because they stopped to notice how fancy the car is, and wanted to know if you were a snobby rich kid, just interrested in cars, or someone trying to look fancier than he is. and having people know you is also beneficial in society, even if it's just a little bit.

[polyfrag]

actually' date=' it does. having a big fancy car makes people think you can afford a big fancy car, which makes people think your rich. being rich, or even being thought of as rich, is very beneficial to our survival and the ability to have and raise children.

if people don't think of you as rich enough for the car, then at the very least they're going to know who you are because of it. because they stopped to notice how fancy the car is, and wanted to know if you were a snobby rich kid, just interrested in cars, or someone trying to look fancier than he is. and having people know you is also beneficial in society, even if it's just a little bit.[/quote']

 

On the individual level, this leads to success.

 

On the social level, this leads to congestion, pollution, and car accidents.

 

Evolution works when over-all good behaviour is rewarded.

 

But owning a big fancy car leads to over-all destructive behaviour.

 

See the problem? Reward system is set up all wrong.

 

Humanity is blind. Brass on the Titanic. It's all going down.

[Mokele]

Evolution works when over-all good behaviour is rewarded.

 

Actually, that's not how it works at all. Evolution is strictly a short-term, individual-oriented approach. If it works for the individual, to hell with how it affects others or the ecosystem. A predator does not stop evolving a better method of catching prey because it might alter the ecosystem.

 

Mokele

[AL]

Evolution works when over-all good behaviour is rewarded.

 

But owning a big fancy car leads to over-all destructive behaviour.

Evolution is working when bad behavior is punished as well. If our own behavior causes our own demise, evolution is still working.

[bascule]

But owning a big fancy car leads to over-all destructive[/i'] behaviour.

 

A big fancy car influences the behavior of the person driving it? I don't think so, I think if anything automobiles might somewhat reflect the personality of those driving it. However that big fancy car might, say, take a firefighter to work, who saves dozens of lives every month alone.

 

I'd say America is way more individual-oriented than other countries, and this has lead us to be rather innovative.

[polyfrag]

Seems like people aren't getting me...

 

Actually, that's not how it works at all. Evolution is strictly a short-term, individual-oriented approach. If it works for the individual, to hell with how it affects others or the ecosystem. A predator does not stop evolving a better method of catching prey because it might alter the ecosystem.

 

Evolution is working on the individual level, in the sense that it's in effect.

 

But evolution is not working on the social level, in the sense that it's leading to lower fitness of the species.

 

Evolution can't be purely individual-based in the long-run. Alleles are diffused within the genepool as individuals interbreed, so populations will evolve as one unit.

 

Have you read the Selfish Gene Theory?

 

 

A big fancy car influences the behavior of the person driving it? I don't think so, I think if anything automobiles might somewhat reflect the personality of those driving it. However that big fancy car might, say, take a firefighter to work, who saves dozens of lives every month alone.

I didn't mean behaviour "personality".

 

I meant behaviour "processes" or "results" - congestion, pollution, car accidents.

 

There's also many other reasons besides. For every owner, cars require resources to build them and to maintain them. They usually don't carry more than 2 people (1/2 operating capacity), and are only operated a fraction of the 24 hours.

 

Mass transit system is better in all these respects.

 

But this really isn't about cars. It seems you people are dwelling too much on the individual, specific details and can't see the whole picture.

[Mokele]

But evolution is not working on the social level, in the sense that it's leading to lower fitness of the species.

 

The extent to which species or population level selection occurs is debatable, but the range of answers is only from "a bit" to "never". Only very, very rarely do the sorts of factors you talk about come into play. For instance, say a species of aliens landed, with less selfish ways. While their species is better in the long term, competition for resources is at the individual level, as is evolution, so the selfish humans would sequester more resources and win out in the end.

 

Evolution can't be purely individual-based in the long-run. Alleles are diffused within the genepool as individuals interbreed, so populations will evolve as one unit.

 

There is *some* level of kin selection, yes, but beyond cousins it vanishes. Evolution acts on the individual (it's the individual who lives or dies, screws or doesn't, etc) and the effect shows in the genes.

 

Populations don't really 'evolve together'. If a new beneficial mutation appears and spreads, it does so because the original mutant and it's descendants and kin are selfishly out-competing others of the population (since there is always some level of competition in populations). Sure, "the population" benefits, but a population is nothing but an aggregation of individuals, and the only ones who actually benefitted were those who descended from the original mutant.

 

Have you read the Selfish Gene Theory?

 

Not specifically, however, I am more than familiar with his arguement. While genes are a nice way to measure and watch evolution, the actual unit that is acted upon is the organism, not the gene.

 

It seems you people are dwelling too much on the individual, specific details and can't see the whole picture.

 

No, *we* aren't. We can easily see the big picture. The point is that *evolution* does not see the big picture, but rather acts on a short-term, selfish, individual level.

 

In a colonly of bacteria on an agar plate, the one that breeds the fastest will use up the resources first. But it will also outcompete the slower-breeding forms simply because, if 50% die every generation at random due to starvation, and the fast breeders produce more offspring than slow, over time the slow ones will die, even though they took the long term perspective.

 

Do I agree that human selfish behavior will cause problems for us? Absolutely! But that's the way we are, and no amount of protestation will change the nature that is coded into us by evolution.

 

Mokele

[JonM]

I think we want big fancy cars for the reasons states above (respect, people will like you, feel and look rich etc) but why do we feel the need to have respect? That’s human nature in society. But soceity generates this image, more specifically big companies that use advertisements and television etc to get this image across so you will buy their car. Why is that? Money.

 

Medicine has stopped natural selection in a sense. It interferes with nature and hence we have many genetic diseases. Society for the most part (excluding poor countries in Africa and such) can provide a healthy life for anyone no matter how dumb/smart or strong/weak they are, this also in a sense stops natural selection. Humans have overcome natural selection. And in the future genetic engineering will solve this…

 

But back to your point, our instincts are driven elsewhere, to gain respect in society, to gain wealth, etc.

Western society is very material, why? Lots of reasons, the main one I am sure is that big corporations can make billions from us and they cram our lives with specifically designed ads etc. So we are part of a gigantic money spending machine whose ultimate individual goal in life is to make money so we can buy stuff. This impedes philosophical thinking, creativity, and all that great stuff that makes us human.

 

Buddhists have the right idea, if you can attain peace with yourself you don’t need material goods to make you happy. The countries in Southeast Asia which are predominantly Buddhist are some of the poorest in the world, and yet you can say there are some of the happiest; theres little violence and crime and all that other nonsense that becomes what I call the bad side of human nature.

 

What can we do in a western society? Well reject MTV and McDonalds and stupid fads in our culture, be creative, write, do art, philosophize, and be at peace with yourself. Of course you need to still be in society, you need to work, buy stuff whatever. I don’t know the answer but I hope my post makes some sense out of something.

[polyfrag]

What can we do in a western society? Well reject MTV and McDonalds and stupid fads in our culture, be creative, write, do art, philosophize, and be at peace with yourself.

 

Can you explain why, on anything other than a moral/religious basis?

 

It can't be for the sake of happiness. Happiness can't be an end in itself, like money can't be an end in itself. You use money to buy goods, and you use happiness to do things you hate.

 

Money is a lot like happiness. Nature probably used happiness as an 'accounting-system' to make sure ape did a certain number of things that ensured its survival.

 

But too much money is worthless if it's not backed up by physical goods. And too much happiness is meaningless if it's not backed up by deeds.

 

There's hippies that say "life is about enjoyment", "the sky is blue", "the grass is green", etc... but they're not the ones snorting coke with hookers, eating McShit everyday... that would be the most efficient way to get instant gratification.

 

Really, that's their role-model, they just don't realize it. Even if they did realize it, they probably wouldn't accomplish it because they would get caught up on the insignificant details, or because of their moral-infexibilities.

 

That's a fukced-up role-model. Can you imagine if that was somebody's actual goal in life? "When I grow up, I want to snort coke with hookers everyday..." Can you see my concern here?

 

Individual is half genes, half ideas. Genes are out-dated, so they won't matter in the long-run. I'd rather manifest myself in ideas than die off like the rest.

 

Everyone's a gear in the clockwork. Think what the world would be like if every gear was like you.

[bascule]

Mass transit system is better in all these respects.

 

Unless you live in the heart of a bustling metropolis, mass transit is also going to be slower.

 

But this really isn't about cars. It seems you people are dwelling too much on the individual, specific details and can't see the whole picture.

 

Nobody can see the whole picture. You can only make some gross assumptions and take your best guess.

 

But I see a highly dynamic system which shifts depending on the state of the market, and as gas prices have risen I've seen an enormous shift towards the use of bicycles.

 

Don't get me wrong, I support the use of mass transit, but I find your view rather short-sighted.

[john5746]

Everyone's a gear in the clockwork. Think what the world would be like if every gear was like you.

 

A pretty boring world. We are not ants and even ants have seperate roles in their society. If your only goal is to improve the "fitness" of the human species - what is your definition of fitness? How much of the individual do you sacrifice to attain this goal? Do we all just plug in like a battery to the matrix? The path is more important than the goal. I would rather one person have a life with some happiness and suffering than the whole universe populated with drones.

 

So, it seems a waste to you that someone eats at McD's or watches MTV, but some think it is a waste to learn all the details of star formation, instead of just enjoying the view. Be humble and realize that you don't know how everyone should behave and that they should not all be like you.

[polyfrag]

Well... nobody got me yet. But, just out of curiousity, what are people's reactions after reading this: http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Krutov%20Interview.htm

[john5746]

I think you have ADD and maybe a little schitzo. You are hijaking your own thread.

Have fun.

[Mokele]

Well, this thread degenerated fast.

 

Is the original topic (what little there was of one) going to resurface?

[bascule]

Humanity always creates new problems when it solves old ones. That's the nature of the game. But we've noticed that the more problems we solve, the higher standard of living we attain.

 

I have no problems trusting science to find solutions to the problems it creates; it's done a remarkably good job of this in the past and I see no reason why we shouldn't continue trusting it to do so in the future.

 

And given how much disinformation I've heard repeated by those who refuse to trust science (especially in regards to global warming) I certainly don't trust the alarmists who have no research to substantiate their claims.

[polyfrag]

What? Now I've completely lost you. Anyheck, I don't really care anymore to try.

 

Bye, guys.

[Glider]

Well that was short and sweet. Seems like a good time to close a largely pointless thread.