What do you think of this theory?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think most of the world's strife is a result of the contrast between the immense love most people have for their families, and the relative indifference people have in comparison towards their fellow human?

Me against my brother
Me and my brother against our cousin
Me, my brother and my cousin against the world.

I tend to see most conflict as an expression of tribalism. We fight with "people like us" against "others." Whether it's a fight for land, for political power or resources, we are going to be happier with those things in the hands of people like us, than "them."

Family is, of course, a fundamental tribal unit. But there are many others that are clearly in evidence to day. Religious conflict is a case in point--but even if we abandoned all religious adherence tomorrow, we would still see other barriers between "us" and "them."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g[/youtube]

Yes. I'm not like Plato who wanted to abolish the family, I think there is a richness in the experience of being part of a family that could not be replaced in friendship, though friendship is equally important it's just different. Humans imo need family and friends to be happy, just family or just friends alone is not enough. Family can't replace friends either.

Personally, I like the idea of thinking of all human beings as brothers and sisters. Of course, people are always going to be most concerned with those in their 'tribe', or community, but in my opinion the belief that blood is always thicker than water causes conflict. One should love their family yes, and it is important, but one should also love their fellow human being, at least in principle, in the same way they love their brother.

No.

Wars are fought more for differing ideologies than for any other reason, in my opinion.

I'm not really talking about war alone, I'm talking about mankind's problems in general.

Looking after one's own blood is a survival strategy. Those that practice it are more likely to survive and have their offspring survive until they reproduce. Darwinian Natural Selection will favor those who look after their flesh and blood.

ruveyn

That is why all the species of all the ant families have the longest fossil records, and this demonstrates that absolute socialism is most beneficial of ensuring survival of that family known as the human species.

E.O. Wilson became known as "the father of sociobiology", and it has been established that the optimal size for divisions of the human version of the "superorganism" into families is one billion people in each division.

However, Honeybees and Bumblebees are more humane to each other in the family than are ants and humans.

The word "family", as applied to humans, has been becoming a smaller and smaller unit in common parlance, being replaced with also reduced in size concepts, such as "tribes" and "clans". "Family" often means now only "mother and child".

Tadzio

Tadzio, it has also been noted that hive insects work together because their queen is usually the one who passes on genetic material, not the workers or the soldiers. If anything, it's an "ideal" monarchy.

Some models have considered the usually non-fertile members as disconnected "body-parts" of the central member (indeed, why does all parts of an "individual" have to be directly "connected"?, members of a "flesh & blood" human individual army troop aren't), and other models have gone the exact opposite direction of the "ideal" monarchy, almost to Reagan's slogan of Welfare Queen Mother (she expects society to wait on her hand-and-foot, while she just has babies for the added welfare benefits delivered to her for life by the true honest hard-workers (either that or she owns alot of gold, stocks, and bonds from the talented drone))).

Many human cultures have different forms similar to the "first born" customs, and history is loaded with celibacy requirements, fratricides, patricides, etc. inside "royal" or "divine" families (the notion of "mundane" families isn't very old, as the non-royal were just labeled with the trade the individual person excelled in at the time (i.e., shoemaker, baker, tailor, smith, etc.)). The warm, fuzzy, "Leave It To Beaver" and "Little House" family is more myth than reality, and the little reality it does has, only has a very short history. Kingdom and "team" loyalty has a much longer connected history.

Tadzio

Humans are social animals but they are not herd animals or hive animals. Humans have egos which ants, bees and wasps surely do not.

ruveyn

In hard science land, such as Skinnerian Behaviourism, "ego" does not exist, as it is a fictional construct. Many students of von Frisch were so enmeshed with such fictional constructs, that in their studies with the "Dancing Bees", they assigned "thoughts" and "egos" to the bees, as well as to each other (von Frisch tried to blame the limits of language (verbal behaviour) for such surfacing of ghosts of pseudo-science).

Tadzio

The OP's theory is just a longwinded way of saying that "all conflict is about self interest" which is almost a tautology ( like saying all bachelors are single).

Even when a fight is over beliefs often the beliefs are just badges being worn ( like football jersies) so the contestants know who their teammates are and who the opposition is ( ie it gives you instant allies- and your adversaries instant allies) - in a powerstruggle that has little to do with the content of the beliefs themselves.

Even an idealistic true believer is still fighting for his own vision of society- also a kind of "self interest".

No, what I am saying is that I think most of our problems are not caused by criminals or the few people who are truly mad, but rather, are caused by the fact that most people do not really care about humanity as a whole; they only are looking after their families. Which like was said, essentially just means "me and my kids" or "me and my mom" now much of the time. Back in the day, when your whole tribe was your family, and you might have not ever met other tribes, it was more of a complete love of your fellow human.

Skinner was a charlatan.

Look to yourself. Do you sense thoughts. Do you sense an ego. Of course you do. Forget Skinner.

ruveyn

As the video above shows, humans have successfully projected their empathy to include broader categories of people. From blood --> religion ----> fellow citizens of their nation states. It may yet expand further.

Look at the misanthropic Ruveyn. He's spitting blood to defend judaism and jews here on a weekly basis. Far beyond the interests of his immediate family.