The (Not So) Slow Return to “Stateless Society”, The “Law of the Jungle”, the Old/New “Social Contract” from “ThanksGiving Black Friday” to “Homelessness Malediction” ;+) — 11/29/2014

For Your Entertainment (FYE)

Confused by the “everyone for oneself” of “ThanksGiving”” Black Friday” shopping “orgy”, while others are preaching in MegaChurches for the “Homeless”, and, in the mean time, everyone else, from ISIL/ISIS, Boko Haram, Ukraine, Communist Maoist China, Communist Leninist/Stalinist North Korea/Russia/USSR/Viet Nam, Fundamentalist Islam Shia Iran and Fundamentalist Islam Sunni Turkey “got it”, a long time ago, and have been taking advantage of “it”since?

Welcome to a “vivid” reminder, if that was necessary, of the “eternal” “social contract” that “Over-Nature” “Cultures” and “Civilizations”, try and fail ,to remedy, the “Law of Real Nature”, not Walt Disney’s Hollywood’s, the “Law of the Jungle”……..;+)

“The law of the jungle” is an expression that means “every man for himself,” “anything goes,” “survival of the strongest,” “survival of the fittest,” “kill or be killed,” “dog eat dog” and “eat or be eaten,”. The Oxford English Dictionary, defines the Law of the Jungle as “the code of survival in jungle life, now usually with reference to the superiority of brute force or self-interest in the struggle for survival.” It is also known as jungle law or frontier justice.”

“The phrase was used in a poem by Rudyard Kipling to describe the obligations and behaviour of a wolf in a pack. However, this use of the term has been overtaken in popularity by the other interpretations above.”

“”NOW this is the law of the jungle, as old and as true as the sky,
And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die.

As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back;
For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.

Wash daily from nose tip to tail tip; drink deeply, but never too deep;
And remember the night is for hunting and forget not the day is for sleep.

The jackal may follow the tiger, but, cub, when thy whiskers are grown,
Remember the wolf is a hunter—go forth and get food of thy own.

Keep peace with the lords of the jungle, the tiger, the panther, the bear;
And trouble not Hathi the Silent, and mock not the boar in his lair.

When pack meets with pack in the jungle, and neither will go from the trail,
Lie down till the leaders have spoken; it may be fair words shall prevail.

When ye fight with a wolf of the pack ye must fight him alone and afar,
Lest others take part in the quarrel and the pack is diminished by war.”

—Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936)

“A stateless society is a society that is not governed by a state. In stateless societies, there is little concentration of authority; most positions of authority that do exist are very limited in power and are generally not permanently held positions; and social bodies that resolve disputes through predefined rules tend to be small. Stateless societies are highly variable in economic organization, and cultural practices.

“While stateless societies were the norm in human prehistory, few stateless societies exist today; almost the entire global population resides within the jurisdiction of sovereign states. In some regions nominal state authorities may be very weak and wield little or no actual power. Over the course of history most stateless peoples have been integrated into the state-based societies around them.

“Some political philosophies, particularly anarchism, regard the state as an unwelcome institution and consider stateless societies as an ideal.”

“Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United States and Europe in the 1870s, and which sought to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics. Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others motivated ideas of eugenicsracismimperialism,  fascismNazism and struggle between national or racial groups.

“The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used after 1944 by opponents of these earlier concepts. Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War, few people would describe themselves as social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.

Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to make the weak perish—is a logical consequence of “Darwinism” (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a naturalistic fallacy, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society. Social Darwinism owed more to Herbert Spencer‘s ideas, together with genetics and a Protestant Nonconformist tradition with roots in Hobbes and Malthus, than to Charles Darwin‘s research. While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin’s theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.

“Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin’s own views on human social and economic issues. His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it. Some scholars argue that Darwin’s view gradually changed and came to incorporate views from the leading social interpreters of his theory such as Spencer, but Spencer’s Lamarckian evolutionary ideas about society were published before Darwin first published his theory, and both promoted their own conceptions of moral values. Spencer supported laissez-faire capitalism on the basis of his Lamarckian belief that struggle for survival spurred self-improvement which could be inherited.”

“The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (though to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved “pro-social” emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors. Conversely, it has been argued by other biologists that humans developed truly moral, altruistic instincts.

“On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group’s cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals’ fitness. On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behaviour such as inbreeding.”

“The phenomenon of ‘reciprocity‘ in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, some vampire bats fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984) Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as “a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups.” This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness. In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts. They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social ‘politics’ prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.”

“Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mindabilities. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.”

“A British poll found that the most important moral points among young people were looking after ones family and putting others before yourself.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_the_Jungle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_West
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Jungle_Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Jungle_Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s